Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Consideration deferred till Thursday.

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE [MONEY]

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of any grant or other payment made or sum provided by the Secretary of State and the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Secretary of State attributable to any Act of the present Session to confirm an Order to authorise the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board to acquire additional lands and to construct further works, to repeal the provisions of the Forth Road Bridge Orders, 1947 to 1954, relative to the financing of the undertaking of the said Board and to enact new provisions with respect thereto, and for other purposes (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)

Miss Herbison: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of considerable importance to my constituents. I have put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade. It has been transferred to the Minister of Labour and National Service although it is, indeed, a Question that must be dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade. Is there anything I can do to get an Answer today?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. As I have frequently said, the transference of

Questions has nothing to do with me; it is done by Ministers. I would advise the hon. Lady to await the written reply which she will get and then return to the matter if she is not satisfied with what she is told.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

British Film Production

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the falling receipts of the British Film Production Fund, what action he will take to maintain and increase British film production.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I regret that so far the yield of the levy has fallen below the estimate but it is too early to consider altering the rate.

Mr. Swingler: Is not this a quite serious situation? Whether or not a reduction in the number of cinemas is inevitable or desirable, is it not a fact that the need for expanding film production remains great, both for export as well as for the home market? Therefore, what will the Minister do to see that there is not a comparable falling off in production, as is threatened at the moment?

Sir D. Eccles: As the hon. Member knows, British film production is assisted by the quota and by the operations of the National Film Finance Corporation. I agree, however, that this is a difficult situation, but we must wait a little to see what the yield of the levy turns out to be.

Captain Pilkington: If my right hon. Friend agrees that the position of the film industry is indeed serious, will he have a persuasive word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the Budget?

Sir D. Eccles: I have to be careful in answering questions about that.

Aircraft Exports (Embargo List)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will reconsider the position of aircraft in relation to the embargo list of exports.

Sir D. Eccles: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) on 12th December.

Mr. Willey: In view of the difficulties of the aircraft industry and in view of the changed circumstances in the use of aircraft for military purposes, will the right hon. Gentleman keep this matter under lively review?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

Home-Grown Barley (Export)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of home-grown barley exported since 1st August, 1956, and the average value per ton.

Sir D. Eccles: Eighteen thousand five hundred and twenty-two tons of home-produced barley at an average price of £26 per ton were exported between 1st August, 1956, and 31st December, 1957.

Mr. Willey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in consequence, what is the subsidy that is borne on these exports?

Sir D. Eccles: Not without notice.

Import Controls

Sir R. Boothby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that Her Majesty's Government possess adequate powers and effective machinery to impose import controls discriminating against the United States of America should a continuation of the present United States recession render this necessary to protect our own economy.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. Our import licensing powers are comprehensive. We have every confidence that the United States Government will take effective action to deal with a recession.

Sir R. Boothby: Has my right hon. Friend made it plain to the American Government that they really cannot expect us to take more from them than the equivalent of what they themselves import or lend or give away; and that if the dollar shortage continues and if the recession continues, we shall really have no option but to restrict our dollar imports to the level of our dollar earnings?

Sir D. Eccles: When I was recently in the United States, I made some speeches referring to the need for a liberal trade policy on the part of the United States Government, but I hope that we shall not come to discrimination.

Mr. Jay: Is the President of the Board of Trade at least giving his mind now to the question of what we should do if, unhappily, this recession gets worse?

Sir D. Eccles: I am always thinking about that kind of thing.

Havana Cigars (Quota)

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the quota for the import of Havana cigars has been increased.

Sir D. Eccles: This was agreed in the recent negotiations about the renewal of the Anglo-Cuban Trade Agreement. The purpose was to encourage our trade with Cuba.

Mr. Lipton: Since for two years running they have "welshed" on the American loan because of the dollar shortage, where do this Government of fumbling and fiddling Neros hope to find more dollars for Havana cigars? Would it not be more patriotic to import more Jamaican cigars, if old-age pensioners and others have become cigar addicts after seven years of alleged Tory prosperity?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not think that this very small increase in the quota for Havana cigars will injure the Jamaica trade. Jamaican cigars are cheaper. What we are trying to do is to earn more dollars from Cuba on the other side of the account.

Machine Tools

Mr. Edelman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decline in trade on the part of the machine tool industry; and what action he is taking to find new markets for this nationally important industry.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him yesterday. As regards new markets, I am glad to say that in 1957 the machine tool industry achieved record exports, including a particularly gratifying increase in shipments to North America.

Mr. Edelman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's reply mask the fact that more special purpose machine tools vital for our industry are being imported than we are exporting; and,


further, is he aware that a quarter of the machine tool workers in the Coventry area, highly skilled men, are now facing redundancy? Pending nationalisation, will he take action to investigate the paradoxes of the situation?

Sir D. Eccles: I am not aware of this situation in the machine tool industry, but I will look into it.

Butter

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of below-cost butter have been dumped in Great Britain in each of the last three years.

Sir D. Eccles: As I told my hon. Friend the Member far Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) on 24th January, I do not have this information.

Mr. Irving: As this matter has been raised in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Director-General of the Department of Agriculture in New Zealand estimates the figure to be 40,000? What effect does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, will have on this position?

Sir D. Eccles: When the New Zealand mission was here last year, I explained to it the procedure which should be adopted if New Zealand wished to make an application for an anti-dumping duty, and no such application has yet been made.

Sulphate of Ammonia

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will review the customs duty on imported sulphate of ammonia.

Sir D. Eccles: As I told the hon. Member in reply to a similar Question on 25th July last, if an application is made by users for the removal or alteration of this duty, I will consider it. No application has been received.

Mr. Wiley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, the National Farmers' Union has not a fertilisers committee and is not directly interested because farmers receive subsidised fertilisers? What I am concerned

about is the expense to the taxpayer. Surely, the fact that no imports are coming in arises because the rate of tariff is too high. Will he look into this again on my representation?

Sir D. Eccles: My information is that the United Kingdom manufacturers' home prices are broadly comparable with prices ruling in other countries. There does not appear to be much prospect for importing.

Trade with Gambia

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British Trade Commissioners there are in Gambia; and what is the extent of their staffs and the scope of their work.

Sir D. Eccles: United Kingdom trade with Gambia is not on a scale which would justify stationing a Trade Commissioner there. The Trade Commissioner in Accra is responsible for dealing with trade matters arising in Gambia, and the Financial Secretary of the Gambia Government acts as his local representative.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in Gambia foreign countries, notably certain European countries, are increasing their trade successfully in competition with British trade? Since energetic measures must be taken to promote increased British trade there, will he appoint another Trade Commissioner?

Sir D. Eccles: Certainly, we want to get a good share of this trade, but it is a question whether there really is work for a separate office and Trade Commissioner. I will look into the question.

Common Market (Rome Treaty)

Sir L. Heald: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the uncertain legal situation which arises from the projected implementation of the Rome (Common Markets) Treaty by six European countries, and, in particular, to the possible effect of Articles 85 and 88 of that Treaty, in rendering null and void numerous current and future commercial contracts between British nationals and nationals of any of the six countries; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware that there is uncertainty in commercial and legal


circles about the effect of these Articles of the Treaty of Rome, and I am making inquiries.

Sir L. Heald: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. In view of the very real anxiety about this matter, will he, when his inquiries are complete, give those who are interested an opportunity of discussing the matter with him?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir; I certainly will.

British Industries Fair (Future)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the British Industries Fair.

Sir D. Eccles: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements by the Board of Trade and the Federation of British Industries which were published in the Board of Trade Journal for 20th December. I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Irving: In view of the fact that this decision will mean the end of the British Industries Fair, the House will regret it, at a time when British industry so urgently needs a national shop window. Since one of the reasons given, in coming to that decision, was a lack of national leadership, when does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give such leadership?

Sir D. Eccles: National leadership in this case means a large subsidy, and, in my opinion, when there are 105 out of 109 trade associations against a fair, it is not much good giving this leadership.

Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Limited

Mr. Callaghan: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to nominate any of his officers to serve on the joint consultative committee dealing with conditions of employment of employees of the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Limited.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir.

Mr. Callaghan: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reach a sensible conclusion about these wage claims if he is not present to hear the arguments?

Sir D. Eccles: Apart from the staff representatives, the committee consists of three representatives of the company, two

of whom must be directors. All the directors, of course, have been appointed by the Board of Trade. These people will act within the broad limit laid down by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Callaghan: That being so, why has the right hon. Gentleman taken the power of decision out of their hands?

Sir D. Eccles: I have not taken power out of their hands. I have merely said that there are certain limits within which they can negotiate.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what those limits are?

Sir D. Eccles: If this were a private company the limiting factor would be the profits; the directors could not raise salaries beyond the profits they earned. In this case, it is the taxpayer's money, and, therefore, we have to set some limit.

Mr. Callaghan: Then, since it is the taxpayer's money, why does not the right hon. Gentleman enter into direct negotiations with them, instead of foisting the thing off on to another body and then sheltering behind that, while remaining free to alter its decisions?

Sir D. Eccles: No; I have confidence in these gentlemen who have been appointed by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has instructed the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Limited that they must consult him before reaching a conclusion on pay claims made by the staff.

Sir D. Eccles: Because the salaries of the staff of the Wales and Monmouthshire Industrial Estates Ltd. are, in effect, met from Exchequer funds. It is, therefore, my duty to ensure that any increases are in accordance with the Government's policies for controlling inflation.

Mr. Callaghan: Why did this same principle not apply several years ago when the joint machinery was set up at the invitation of the President of the Board of Trade, during the lifetime of the last Government?

Sir D. Eccles: We have now financial policies which require this kind of action.

Mr. Callaghan: Is not the President now giving us the real answer; that this has nothing to do with the negotiating ability of these people, but is political interference by the Government in the settlement of the wages? Does he realise that this Government have the worst reputation of any since 1926 in the handling of industrial relations?

Sir D. Eccles: It would be a very bad day when the taxpayer's interests were not taken into consideration.

Soap Powders and Detergents

Mr. Turton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the absence of particulars of weight from packets of soap powders and other detergents is causing confusion to both retailers and customers; and whether he will take the necessary steps to require that such packets bear particulars of their weight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): A requirement to mark soap powders and detergents cannot be imposed under existing legislation, but my right hon. Friend will bear this in mind when considering future legislation.

Mr. Turton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that last night I sent his right hon. Friend an example of one packet of soap powder, with an advertised price of 1s. 9d., that weighed 1 lb. 9½ oz., and another packet, with an advertised price of 1s. 10d. but with a special price reduction of 4d., that weighed 1 lb. 2½ oz.? Does not he realise that this confusion is growing, especially with the issue of coupons relating to soap powders, and will he take early action to stop it?

Mr. Erroll: I carefully examined the two packets this morning, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will be glad to learn that the larger packet, weight for weight, is, in fact, better value for money. I should like to reassure him that we have every sympathy with the need to bring into being an up-to-date law on this subject, but it must await Parliamentary time.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is about time that the Government implemented the policy which

they put in the Gracious Speech about two years ago—that something was to be done about the Hodgson Report? This question of soap powders and cleaning powers is becoming nothing more or less than a racket. When the housewife gets the larger packet she thinks she is getting more for the money, when, in fact, she is very often getting less. If the hon. Gentleman wants more samples, I can provide him with them.

Mr. Erroll: We propose to do a good deal by regulation about foodstuffs, but we have no power to do anything about non-foodstuffs. I would remind the hon. Lady that this is, of course, a highly competitive industry, and that helps to keep down retail prices.

Factories, Penygroes

Mr. G. Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made for the tenancy and effective use of the existing factory at Penygroes, Caernarvonshire; and when work will start on the building of the second factory approved for the site.

Sir D. Eccles: I am informed that the new tenants of the existing factory are taking over immediately, in order to begin the training of workers for the second factory which is to be built for them. Tenders for the construction of the second factory are returnable by the end of this month, and it is hoped that the building contract will be placed during February.

Mr. Roberts: Might I ask that every possible inducement and assistance be given to the firm that is coming into this district, a district that has the highest average unemployment in the whole of Great Britain? For the same reason, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give special consideration to the possibility of having local firms, particularly contractors, to do the work of building and equipping the new factory he mentions?

Sir D. Eccles: I am very glad that these arrangements have at last been made, largely, I understand, as a result of conciliation by the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs. I will look into the point about the local contractors.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the increasing concern in more than one part of


Wales about increasing unemployment, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the powers he now has in relation to Government policy are adequate to meet the need for new industries in Carmarthenshire, Caernarvonshire and elsewhere?

Sir D. Eccles: We have the powers, but that is not to say that we are always able to get an employer to go there.

Light Industries, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage more light industries in Scotland.

Sir D. Eccles: I am making every effort to interest companies in setting up new factories in those parts of Scotland which have special unemployment problems.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his efforts to get these companies to come to Scotland will be helped if missile rocket bases are established there? Is he aware that the Scottish T.U.C. is of the opinion that if these missile bases are established in North and North-East Scotland they will drive employment away? Does he not think it would be better to establish more useful industries that are not yet obsolete?

Sir D. Eccles: I should have thought that it would be more likely to bring more money into those parts.

Commander Donaldson: As it is not anticipated that rocket sites are to be established in South-East Scotland, will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the needs of Jedburgh, in Roxburghshire, about which we have had a lot of correspondence and discussion?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes.

Monopolies Commission (Reports)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade what Reports he has received from the Monopolies Commission since it was reconstituted under the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.

Sir D. Eccles: None, Sir.

Mr. Wade: In view of that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that,

in its latest size, the Monopolies Commission is adequate? Further, as there are many forms of restriction that are not covered by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act—such as the restrictive agreements limiting supply and distribution by certain suppliers to one particular manufacturer—is it intended in the future that there should be any general references to the Monopolies Commission? If so, will the Commission be able to cope with inquiries of that nature?

Sir D. Eccles: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I would say that I asked the Chairman of the Commission, and he considers the Commission is adequate. If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer to the second part of his supplementary question, I would ask him to put it down in the form of a Question.

Two-wheeled Tractors (Licences)

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will give a considered reply to the Federation of Manufacturers of Contractors' Plant on the licensing position of two-wheeled tractors.

Sir D. Eccles: A reply was sent to the Federation last week.

Miss Herbison: Having examined the evidence that was brought before him, is the President aware that there is a gross wastage of dollars caused by his Department issuing a much-increased number of licences in September, and only in October going to the firm in the new Development Area in Scotland to find out whether or not it could provide these tractors.

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. I think that it is very necessary to have continuity of delivery of these tractors. As the firm in question was not expected to produce until October, the grant of licences early in September seems to be reasonable. No licences were granted after early September. We have, in fact, had nineteen applications, and all the applicants have been told to go to the firm in which the hon. Lady is interested.

Miss Herbison: Is it not the case that these licences that were granted have not now been tied to firm orders, as we were told; and that already there have been


advertisements to say that these machines from America are in stock, and can be sold?

Sir D. Eccles: My information is that the machines were imported before those relating to these forty-six licences.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cinemas (Entertainment Duty)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent actual receipts from entertainments tax on cinemas in the first three quarters of the current financial year were greater or less than his estimates.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): It is not the practice to split up into shorter periods Budget estimates given for a complete financial year.

Mr. Swingler: Has not the new Chancellor been informed that there has been a very sharp fall in cinema attendances, which, with the closure of cinemas, must mean a fall in the revenue from this tax? As it will become clear to himself and his advisers very shortly that the yield from this duty shows diminishing returns, will he consider whether or not the rate is much too high?

Mr. Amory: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I would say that I think we must wait and see how the remainder of the year works out. It is not quite as simple a matter as a fall in attendances because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the prices of seats have gone up during the year. As regards the second part, I shall, of course, take this, with all other taxation matters, into consideration between now and the Budget.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SWINGLER: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the average annual receipts in entertainments tax over the previous five years from the 352 cinemas which have closed since the beginning of the financial year 1956–57.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may correct the

figure in the Question. It should show that 353 cinemas have closed down, because I overlooked the Scala cinema, in Dawlish, in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Chancellor aware, as no doubt he may be, that there are not now any cinemas in his own constituency paying the duty, because they have either closed down or are exempt under the rural scheme? Would he consider spreading this benefit to the rest of the country?

Mr. Amory: I am not quite sure that the facts as indicated by the hon. Gentleman are correct.

Sterling (Overseas Earnings)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of his estimate of £125 millions as the annual earnings of the City of London depends upon the use of sterling as a world currency.

Mr. Amory: I regret that it is impossible to assess exactly what proportion of the estimated overseas earnings of £125 million, given in the Economic Secretary's reply of 12th December, 1957, to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), depends upon the use of sterling as a world currency. It is reasonable to say, however, that the international use of sterling has been a major factor in bringing those earnings into existence.

Mr. Shepherd: Could not my right hon. Friend list the headings under which the earnings are made up, so that we may form our own judgment as to the indispensability of sterling as a world currency?

Mr. Amory: I think that would be extremely difficult. What I think is beyond dispute is that sterling plays a vital part in the mechanism of British and world trade.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Can the Chancellor at any rate tell us what proportion of the £125 million is attributable to insurance payments, which, broadly speaking, continued unimpaired throughout the war years under very strict control?

Mr. Amory: I think that, from the information I have at present, that would be extremely difficult, but I will look into that point.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the conversion of post-war credits into Premium Savings Bonds.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the Chancellor if he is aware that there are large numbers of people who, because of accident and injury or perhaps the effect of the Rent Act, are in urgent need of finance, and feel that they are being cheated of it after twelve years? Would not it be possible in cases of hardship to give them some consolation by adopting the proposal in the Question?

Mr. Amory: I know that this matter has been considered by my predecessors on a number of occasions, and always with the same result—that the separation of certain categories of hardship is too difficult and would result in great anomalies. I am sure myself that if more money is available, the best way to use it is to accelerate the repayment.

Mr. Remnant: Would not my right hon. Friend reconsider the proposal—it has been made before—that these postwar credits should be transferred to a transferable stock, so that those who really need it can obtain the cash without extra indebtedness in the Treasury?

Mr. Amory: That aspect has also been considered by my predecessors on a number of occasions, with the result that they found that it would not be feasible and would also be inflationary.

Mr. Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of immediately paying out all the remaining post-war credits of those who died on active service in the armed forces of the Crown up to the end of 1957.

Mr. Amory: I regret that the information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

Mr. Freeth: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—may I ask him, when he comes to form his Budget in April,

to consider whether it would not be possible to accelerate repayment of post-war credits, to give what surely must be the natural priority to the widows and often the ageing parents of those who died in the service of their country?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

United States Forces (United Kingdom Expenditure)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated amount spent annually by the United States forces in the United Kingdom; and what effect he estimates its ending will have on the sterling-dollar exchange rate.

Mr. Amory: Around £80 million, excluding offshore sales. There is no reason to suppose that this expenditure is ending.

Mr. Osborne: Could my right hon. Friend say what the offshore purchases are? Is it fair to say that if the policy of "Yanks, Go Home" were adopted, the people of this country would suffer materially?

Mr. Amory: The offshore sales are sales to the United States, which passes on the arms or equipment to European nations. The value of offshore sales is, I think, somewhere about £40 million.

Remploy and Prison Commissioners (Government Purchases)

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with the Departments concerned in enlarging both the range and quantities of goods purchased by the Government from Remploy and other official organisations of handicapped workers, and from Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: As my predecessor explained in answer to a Question from the hon. Member on 4th June last, Her Majesty's Government are making efforts to enlarge the range and quantity of goods supplied from these sources; this is not an easy task, but discussions are continuing.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, in answering me in June last, expressed sympathy? Is not January about the time


when we should take some action? Will he look at this matter personally, because I am sure that he will find that the Treasury is the only obstacle to a sensible arrangement in this matter for the benefit of disabled people? Will he particularly look into the Treasury Circular of October, 1950, and see whether he can resolve the contradictions in paragraph 4, because, if so, the problem of the disabled will be solved?

Mr. Amory: I should not like it to be thought that the Treasury is the obstacle here. I will look at the Circular to which the hon. Gentleman has referred me, and communicate with him about it; but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to feel that we are just stopping at sympathy. I think some progress is being made in these difficult matters, and my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary is giving them his personal attention.

Income Tax Assessments (Appeals)

Mr. Collins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in some districts, Income Tax notices of assessment were sent out as late as 10th December and that by 31st December taxpayers were required not only to give notice of a wish to appeal, but also to state the grounds of appeal, and to suggest an amount to be paid on account; and if, to avoid the injustices which often arise, he will take steps to extend the period of notice of appeal and also arrange for a copy of the assessment to be sent to the taxpayer's adviser.

Mr. Amory: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion as to extension of the appeal period. The administrative cost of sending a copy of the notice of assessment to the taxpayer's adviser would, in my view, not be justified. A person giving notice of appeal is not obliged to suggest an amount, to be paid on account.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not dealt with the question of extending the period for appeal, and the fact that the Inland Revenue have six years in which to appeal, as compared with the taxpayers' twenty-one days? Is he aware that the district referred to in the Question is his own, and that one West Country accountant had the business over

Christmas of telephoning about fifty farmers and sending out blind a number of appeals, which caused much more work? Will he have a look at the matter again, because there is so much carbon on the assessment forms already that a little bit extra would not matter very much?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that the suggestion of sending out copies of assessments to advisers would be a good one. Indeed, I am told that it would mean sending out something like a million and a half additional communications. I am considering carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about an extension.

Jewellery

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the percentage turn-over of imitation jewellery in this country which, by various means, escapes the full levying of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Amory: I regret that no such estimate is possible.

Mr. Yates: Is the Chancellor saying that, although he has large numbers of Purchase Tax officers whose duty it is to investigate the many complaints made by jewellery manufacturers, he has no estimate whatsoever of the large amount involved in manufacturers escaping Purchase Tax?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I am saying that it is extremely difficult to make any such estimate in the absence of concrete and definite complaints, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be very helpful to me if anyone who knows that any abuse is taking place will forward concrete, specific and definite evidence, when I will have it investigated.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cause of a great deal of this alleged evasion is the confused state of the Purchase Tax Schedule? Is he aware that, in the case of imitation jewellery, if a manufacturer sends out an article of jewellery in a case, the whole invoice is subject to Purchase Tax, but that if he sends out the article separate from the case, the article of jewellery is taxed and the case not taxed? In such circumstances as these, surely it is the Chancellor's job to clear up this shocking mess.

Mr. Amory: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has a Question a little later on the subject.

Mr. Nabarro: On an analogous matter, I agree.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the widespread development of a black market in jewellery in Great Britain; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the matter with a view to taking immediate steps to safeguard the legitimate interests of this industry.

Mr. Amory: Recent allegations in the Press and elsewhere that there is widespread evasion of Purchase Tax in the jewellery trade are being followed up. So far as they have gone, official inquiries indicate that malpractices are not so extensive as has been suggested.

Mr. Yates: Has not the Chancellor read the responsible article in The British Jeweller, in which it is admitted, as it is by most manufacturers, that a black market is now taking place on an enormous scale, and that there has been talk about the large-scale corruption of the industry? In these circumstances, will not the Chancellor have an investigation and inquiry and let the House know the facts?

Mr. Amory: My attention has been directed to the article to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but the answer is the one I have just given—that effective action on my part must turn on my being furnished with specific evidence of abuse.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that Messrs. Hill & Company, fashion jewellery manufacturers in Birmingham, are producing a large number of designs at considerable cost which are being copied and sold in various parts of the country at prices which indicate that Purchase Tax has been evaded; and if he will investigate the matter and report to the House.

Mr. Amory: A complaint by this firm about one of its designs is being investigated, and I will inform the hon. Member, of the result.

Mr. Yates: While thanking the Chancellor for that better Answer, may I ask

him if he is aware that in April last this firm wrote to the Board of Trade calling attention to the fact that a wholesale list of its designs had been copied and pointing out the results of this practice? Will he confer with his colleagues about this matter when investigating it?

Mr. Amory: The advice I have is that only in the case of this one design have we received specific evidence, and in respect of that we are taking action. Any further specific evidence that is afforded us will again be the ground for an investigation.

British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached with the Federal German Government about the payment of support costs for British forces in Western Germany.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Paymaster-General to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) yesterday.

Mr. Chetwynd: But will not the Chancellor be a little more forthcoming? Is there not some personal symbolic significance for him in the figure of £50 million which we are trying to get from the Germans for the upkeep of our troops? Would he not then be in a better position in the dispute over £50 million at home? In view of the fact that German defence expenditure will be only about a quarter of ours in the coming year, will he not be as tough with them as the Prime Minister was with his predecessor and make it clear that unless we get some of these support costs we shall have to review some of our commitments in Germany?

Mr. Amory: I must ask the hon. Member to accept my view that while this matter is under negotiation by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation it would not be helpful if I said anything more.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that the difficulties in which the Government find themselves are the consequences of entering into a treaty for the maintenance of troops in Western Germany without at the same time introducing any clause at all guaranteeing a German contribution towards their costs? Did not we remind


the Treasury and the Prime Minister of the foolishness of doing so at the time?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that would be a fair description of what has happened.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons it has been decided that brushes used for cleaning shoes or teeth shall be free of Purchase Tax, but that brushes used for applying shaving soap or brushing the hair, clothes, or nails, are liable to Purchase Tax at substantial rates; and whether he will give an assurance that this anomaly will be dealt with at an early date by abolishing the tax on all types of brushes.

Mr. Amory: Shaving brushes and hair, clothes and nail brushes are taxable as toilet requisites. Toothbrushes were similarly taxable until 1951 when they were specifically exempted by this House. Shoe brushes are also exempt for the reasons explained by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government on 8th December, 1955.
The review of alleged Purchase Tax anomalies initiated by my predecessor is proceeding, but I can give no such assurance as my hon. Friend asks.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is fiscal lunacy to discriminate in matters of personal clean-lines and hygiene? Is it his purpose to encourage cleanliness of the teeth and deprecate cleanliness of the fingernails? Surely those very insanitary habits of his predecessors ought rapidly to be remedied?

Mr. Amory: In a matter like this it is very easy in abolishing one anomaly to create others.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Purchase Tax was simplified into three rates and that all the changes which have complicated it since 1951 have been supported in the Division Lobby by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro?

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that every one of these anomalies springs from the Purchase Tax arrangements made between 1945 and 1951 and that they have not been made worse by Conservative Administrations?

Mr. H. Wilson: Has not the Chancellor told us that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition removed toothbrushes from Purchase Tax in 1951, and have we not had seven years since that time in which Conservative Chancellors might have followed his example in the matters about which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is concerned?

Mr. Nabarro: I will return to the matter later.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a container for shoe-polishing materials, which consists of a case fastened by a stud and containing two shoe brushes, two tins of polish, and two dusters, is at present subjected to Purchase Tax, whereas a shoe-cleaning case, made in the shape of a binocular case in three separate pieces, the ends of which contain a brush and the centre of which contains the dusters and polish tins, is free of tax; and whether he will review this matter, with the object of freeing from Purchase Tax all cases used for containing shoe-cleaning materials.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend will send me samples or further details I will have the liability of these articles examined.

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot very well send my right hon. Friend voluminous packages representative of cleaning equipment, and everything that goes in them. Is he not aware that there have been incessant representations by manufacturers showing these inequalities as between product and product, all of which is impairing the British export trade? Should my right hon. Friend, therefore, defer his investigations into these important matters?

Mr. Amory: I did not indicate that I was deferring investigation. I said that investigations were proceeding continuously.

Land (Ownership)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that no exact information is available as to what is the proportion of land in Great Britain now owned by the State, and that further land is continually passing out of private ownership into


the direct or indirect ownership of the State and, in view of the implications of this transfer of ownership, if he will ascertain the figures so that it may be seen to what extent the nationalisation of the land is taking place by degrees.

Mr. Amory: Detailed information could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even since this Question was put on the Order Paper it has been announced that a further 86,000 acres of land are to be retained by the Ministry of Agriculture, instead of being returned to private ownership? Will the Government be on their guard against nationalisation of the land by what the late Sidney Webb would have called "the inevitability of gradualness"?

Mr. Amory: I think that my hon. Friend is overlooking the fact that there is a steady handing back of land by various Government Departments at present. It is not as if this were only a one-way movement, as he implies. In my capacity as Minister of Agriculture in the last year or two I participated in the handing back of a substantial acreage of land to private owners.

Taxation

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that in no circumstances can any taxpayer be liable to pay tax at a rate which exceeds 20s. in the pound.

Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend will let me know the type of case he has in mind I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Peyton: Would my right hon. Friend have a look at the effect on private companies which has followed the withdrawal of the Chancellor's umbrella and which has resulted in companies being faced with Surtax payment? I believe that there is an injustice here. Will my right hon. Friend look into it?

Mr. Amory: I shall be looking at all these matters in the course of the general review of taxation which I shall be making in the next few months.

Estate Duty

Mr. Peyton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to ensure that executors shall in no circumstances be liable for Estate Duty on funds which in fact they have never received.

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to differences between the value of property at the date of death and the price at which it is subsequently realised. I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Peyton: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his encouraging Answer, but will he bear in mind particularly the effect of Section 55 of the Finance Act, 1940? Will he consider in a general survey the disastrous and really cruel results which have occurred recently in instances following a death which preceded the increase in the Bank Rate?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister if he will now propose the international banning of hydrogen-bomb tests, in view of the evidence, particulars of which have been communicated to him by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, that atom dust instead of being dispersed evenly round the earth is blown along lines of latitude through North America, most of Europe, including Great Britain, and Siberia with the danger that twelve or more units of strontium will be found in the fall-out in these areas.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, since it is now known that radioactive fall-out is zoned according to prevailing winds in the stratosphere, that this country is in a zone of heavy fall-out and that precipitation here may already be dangerous to health and life, especially among infants, he will reconsider his refusal to negotiate an agreement banning hydrogen bomb tests pending agreement on other aspects of disarmament, and will meanwhile suspend tests by this country.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the fact that the dangers of bone cancer and leukemia


from hydrogen bomb explosions are now known to be greater than was previously believed, he will consider stopping all such British tests immediately.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) on 23rd January.

Mr. Brockway: But is not the evidence which I have forwarded to the Prime Minister later than that? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the article in the Lancet for 28th December, in which there is a report by the committee of twelve scientists, including Dr. Willard Libby, under the auspices of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, to the effect that a fall-out within these lines of latitude may be from 10 to 25 units in the next several years? In view of that danger, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider this matter?

Mr. Butler: I have examined very carefully the article in the Lancet, which includes information which was printed in a footnote to the Report of the United States Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy published last August. This was a forecast. The item "C", to which the hon. Member referred, mentioned the possibility of 10 to 25 strontium units if there was a predicted banding of the fall-out in the latitude of the North-Eastern United States, and the footnote used the expression, "if that occurs." It is a forecast, but it cannot be proved to be correct. The British Government are working on the advice of the Medical Research Council's Report. The present advice is that the highest strontium levels detected in bone in the United Kingdom are between 2·3 and 2·4 units. The present average figure in the United Kingdom is less than one unit and, as the Report tells us that the danger limit should not be greater than 100 strontium units and that we should not begin to get anxious before the level of 10 units, I think that we are working within the level of what is sensible on the basis of the best advice that we can get.

Mr. Bevan: As it has been said frequently that one of the dangers in this

situation is not only the rise in radioactivity but the fact that other nations may themselves begin to test atomic bombs, and we would have no control whatever over the development, is it not desirable that we should now set an example ourselves so that no nations, other than those now possessing them, can have nuclear weapons; or are we to wait until the danger spreads?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. This is one of the matters which is under urgent consideration, namely, the question of the possible banning of nuclear tests, but it really would be easier to secure agreement on measures of real disarmament, such as the control, cut-off and production of fissile material for weapon purposes. The Russians have so far refused to accept the cut-off as an essential first step in nuclear disarmament. We must make progress with that, with a view to making progress on the major important issue to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Bevan: Does not that expose the Government to the charge, perfectly correctly, from the Russians, that they are asking for more than can be agreed at the moment in order to prevent agreement from being reached on first steps? Why do we not first ban these tests and, having banned them, hope that the atmosphere created by that banning will make other agreements far easier? The fact is that the record of the Government in this matter is criminal.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be inferring that the record of this Government is worse than that of the Russian Government, and with that I certainly do not agree. The position of Her Majesty's Government is that we are perfectly sincere in desiring to reach an agreement on disarmament questions. In fact we have put forward, with the support of the whole of the Western Allies, the best disarmament plan we can possibly frame, and we hope to achieve success in the sphere to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government figures he quotes are regarded as controversial and subject to doubt by a great many scientists? For instance, he says that 100 units represent the safety limit. Is it not the fact that many scientists


say that the limit is 10 units? He mentions 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of strontium fall-out today, whereas the point is, how much will come down when the strontium carried in the air has come to earth, without any further tests? Does he not leave it to chance whether or not the scientists are correct who say that the prevailing winds will bring it down here? Is he not altogether giving the benefit of the doubt to the tests over the lives of our children?

Mr. Butler: There is a possibility of every sort of doubt about scientific advice and the Government are perfectly modest on this matter. We are, however, being guided by the best advice we can get from the Medical Research Council Reports, and at any time we can get any further advice, we shall obtain it. I can give the House only the benefit of the advice we have.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our Medical Research Council has stated that if the figure of 10 units were exceeded it would require immediate review of the hazards involved in tests? Is he further aware that both the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council are taking 100 units, or 10 times that figure, as the danger signal? Which figure does he accept?

Mr. Butler: The difference is this. There is really a perfectly clear situation. We have been advised that the maximum permissible concentration of strontium in the bones should be regarded as 100 units, and that immediate consideration should be given if the level should rise above 10 units; so we are allowing a certain latitude of safety according to the advice we have been given.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department at London Airport on Tuesday, 7th January, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
I did not make any speech.

Mr. Thomson: Is the acting Prime Minister aware that I was referring to the remark he was reported to make on the day of the departure of the Prime Minister, that he had been left to hold the baby? Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House a progress report on the baby? Is it pining for the parent who deserted it or does it prefer the Lord Privy Seal as a foster-parent?

Mr. Butler: The only baby I know about is the one called after me, who is the son of a Hungarian couple to whom I gave asylum, and whom I am very proud to have called after my name.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM AND U.S.S.R.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. Bulganin has declared himself to be in favour of the signing of a non-aggression pact between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether he will take the necessary action to initiate discussions with Mr. Bulganin for the signing of such a non-aggression pact.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
This suggestion was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his letter of 17th January to Mr. Bulganin.

Mr. Lewis: Can we have some information as to why progress is not being made? We have the Prime Minister making the suggestion, and immediately Mr. Bulganin accepts it and says that he is anxious to go ahead. May we be assured that it is not because Mr. John Foster Dulles happened to say that he was against it that no further progress has been made? Further, may we have an assurance that progress will be made in this matter?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, is at present drafting a reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter of 8th January, and we had better await that reply before we carry this constructive suggestion any further.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what actions he expects the Soviet


Government to take to show their good faith before he will agree to a summit conference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
There is wide scope for such action on the part of the Soviet Government on many outstanding questions.

Mr. Lewis: But the Minister has not suggested one way which I requested in the Question—namely, are we to take it that, because Mr. Khrushchev has said that if he were here he would be a member of the Tory Party, as soon as he becomes a member of the Tory Party then we can expect some progress on the part of this Government?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We shall have reached the summit then.

Mr. Butler: I am aware of many of Mr. Khrushchev's sayings, including those he made recently at a diplomatic party. All he says is very constructive and in some cases very enlightening. I do not think I should seek to draw him into our domestic politics.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the acting Prime Minister say when we may expect a clear statement on the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to summit talks? Are they still insisting on certain conditions in the form of action by the Russians? Are they contemplating putting forward fresh proposals? Will he please clear up the confusion on this matter as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: There is no confusion on the matter. We are replying as soon as convenient—and that, I hope, will not be too far away—to Mr. Bulganin's letter of 8th January. When we so reply, I do not think the position will be quite so bad as stated by the right hon. Gentleman in his question. I hope we shall be able to send a reply which will be accepted as fair by all.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to publish as a White Paper the whole of the correspondence which has passed between him and the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, during the past six months, on the need for summit talks to resolve international difficulties.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has answered Mr. Bulganin's letter of 8th January the hon. Member's suggestion will certainly be considered.

Mr. Lewis: While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I inquire whether I may be assured that the reply will be sent as quickly as possible?

Mr. Butler: Yes, certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, since it is now known that the crash of an hydrogen or atomic bomb-carrying aeroplane, followed by fire, could result in infecting an area of 100 square miles or more with deadly, long-lived radioactivity from plutonium, he will now forbid the carrying of nuclear weapons by aeroplanes in training or on patrol.

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister what special instructions in the rendering safe of fused airborne nuclear weapons have been given to the appropriate service and civilian first-aid and civil defence units in areas of the country which are regularly flown over by Royal Air Force and United States aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The Question asked by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) is based on assumptions which do not accord with the scientific advice given to the Government on this subject. As I informed the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) on 23rd January, nuclear weapons are at all times in a safe condition while they are being carried over this country. There is therefore no risk of a nuclear explosion and the question of special instructions about fused weapons does not arise.
I should add that in the event of a crash of an aircraft carrying one of these weapons, the danger from radiation, in view of the strict precautions taken, is regarded as slight. It has not therefore hitherto been considered necessary to include, in the standard instructions to Service and civil authorities on action to be taken in relation to crashed aircraft,


any special instructions relating to aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. As I explained to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 23rd January, these standard instructions are kept continually under review and should it be necessary they will be added to and amended.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that in a recent number of the New Scientist the picture given of the damage caused by a crash followed by a fire with a nuclear weapon containing plutonium is very serious and shows that such an incident would be very dangerous to a large area? Is not the right hon. Gentleman's advice on this matter erring on the side of optimism and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who carry or test hydrogen bombs at great risk to the lives of our people and our children?

Mr. Butler: There are two observations which I must make about that. The first is that if the hon. Member will send me any information in his possession, I will certainly have it critically examined. The second is that I must say, for the sake of greater accuracy, that these bombs are very rarely carried on flights over this country.

Mr. de Freitas: If they are not fused when they are carried, what is the reason for carrying them unfused, because there is a danger—even if it is a remote danger—to the public in the areas over which the aircraft fly? Should not the acting Prime Minister deal with that point?

Mr. Butler: I think that that point has been dealt with in numerous supplementary answers by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister—that is to say, there are occasions when such bombs are carried, in what is loosely or broadly described as an unarmed condition, in transit, but those occasions, fortunately, are not very frequent.

Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister told us when last answering me on this subject that these bombs were carried for training purposes. We want to understand—and I am sure that this wish is shared by those

on the opposite side of the House—how it comes about that a bomb which cannot be exploded, because it is not in a condition to be exploded, is of any use for training purposes in the air. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Butler: There are limits to which I can give answers, because of strategic considerations, but there are undoubtedly occasions when aircraft coming into a Service station or airport have to carry these bombs, and on those occasions they are carried in what I describe loosely—because the term is not a term of art—as an unarmed condition.

Mr. Bevan: May I press the point, because there is general interest in this matter? We can all understand that when bombs are being carried into this country, into what might be called depots, they must be carried in such a way that they cannot be detonated. What we want to know is the reason for carrying such bombs in such a state for training purposes—on patrol. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot go further than the answers given by my right hon. Friend. As I have said, the occasions are rare and I cannot, for strategic reasons, say anything further about the other occasions when they may have to be carried.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the acting Prime Minister realise that these contradictory answers from the Treasury Bench are simply adding to the confusion and anxiety in the country about this matter? Will he please consider making a clear statement as to the circumstances and conditions in which hydrogen bombs are carried in United States or R.A.F. aircraft and what kind of control over the carrying of these bombs is exercised by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. If it would help, I will certainly consider that and I do not think that it will be found that anything I have said is inconsistent with the observations made by my right hon. Friend.

BILLS PRESENTED

WAGES

Bill to amend the law relating to the payment of wages, presented by Mr. Page; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th April and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

PARLIAMENT

Bill to alter the composition of the House of Lords by removing its hereditary basis; to reduce its powers and to increase the powers of the House of Commons; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Wedgwood Benn; supported by Mr. Blenkinsop, Mr.

Diamond, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Parker, Mr. Arthur Skeffington, Mr. George Thomson, Mrs, Eirene White, and Mr. Younger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 170.

Division No. 28.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Aitken, W. T.
Duthie, W. S.
Hyde, Montgomery


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Alport, C. J. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Armstrong, C. W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Ashton, H.
Freeth, Denzil
Joseph, Sir Keith


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gammans, Lady
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Atkins, H. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Keegan, D.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Glover, D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Kershaw, J. A.


Barber, Anthony
Godber, J. B.
Kimball, M.


Barlow, Sir John
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kirk, P. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Goodhart, Philip
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gower, H. R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Leavey, J. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Green, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bingham, R. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Grimond, J.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gurden, Harold
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Malden)
McKibbin, Alan


Bryan, P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWaiden)
Hay, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Campbell, Sir David
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Channon, Sir Henry
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Cole, Norman
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Mathew, R.


Cooke, Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Cooper, A. E.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holt, A. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hope, Lord John
Moore, Sir Thomas


Cunningham, Knox
Hornby, R. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mott Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Dance, J. C. G.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Neave, Airey


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howard, John (Test)
Nicholls, Harmar


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Drayson, G. B.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nugent, G. R. H.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.




Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Rippon, A. G. F.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Russell, R. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Page, R. G.
Sharples, R. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Shepherd, William
Turner, H. F. L.


Partridge, E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Peel, W. J.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Soames, Christopher
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wall, Major Patrick


Pott, H. P.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Storey, S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Profumo, J. D.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wood, Hon. R.


Ramsden, J. E.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Woollam, John Victor


Redmayne, M.
Teeling, W.



Remnant, Hon. P.
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Legh.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hastings, S.
Paton, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Prentice, R. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Howell, Charles (Perry Bar)
Proctor, W. T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, J. H.
Randall, H. E.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Rankin, John


Benson, G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowles, F. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hlbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Short, E. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (The Hartiepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Coldrick, W.
Lawson, G. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Ledger, R. J.
Steele, T.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lipton, Marcus
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacDermot, Niall
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, Frank
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Watkins, T. E.


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mahon, Simon
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Moss, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Woof, R. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, David (Rother, Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, J.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilkins.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Act, 1957, by postponing the date until which the tenants of certain dwelling-houses decontrolled under the provisions of subsection (1) of section eleven of that Act shall be entitled to retain possession of those houses; and for purposes connected with that amendment.
The Bill that I seek leave to introduce is a very small one, but it is of vital importance to the peace of mind and happiness of many thousands of tenants throughout the length and breadth of England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that it will commend itself to every hon. Member. I am certain that it will be warmly welcomed by hundreds of thousands of the poorest tenants, especially in the constituency of Kelvingrove, in Scotland, and Rochdale, in Lancashire. I am quite certain that the people in those constituencies will watch the debate on this Motion to see what happens, and act accordingly when the by-elections in those constituencies take place.
The object of the Bill is quite simple. It can be stated quite shortly, and I hope that it is non-controversial. All that it seeks to do is to insert an amendment in the 1957 Rent Act whereby the period laid down in the notices of eviction which have now been given—and which at present expire in October of this year—shall be extended for twelve months, until October, 1959. That will mean that about 800,000 tenants who are now liable to eviction will have at least a further twelve months' grace. Many of my hon. Friends ask why they should be given only twelve months' grace, and why evictions should not be postponed until the next General Election, in view of the fact that the Government introduced the Rent Act without mentioning it to the electorate. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I am non-controversial, and I do not want to make things difficult, so I am suggesting a period of twelve months so that these tenants may have a little peace of mind for that extra time.
As the Act now stands, in October of this year thousands of tenants will be evicted—not may be, but will be. Indeed, thousands of tenants, including constituents of almost every hon. Member,

have already received notices to quit from their landlords. Most of those tenants have not even had the opportunity of discussing the question of the maintenance of their dwellings upon a higher rent basis; the landlords have not given them the opportunity even of discussing what might be termed a more adequate rent. The tenants have just been told that, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the case, out they go in October, 1958.
I know that every hon. Member can quote cases of extreme hardship, and that many tragedies have been caused among some of these poor, helpless people. [Laughter.] It is no good hon. Members opposite laughing. I have experience of such cases, and I challenge hon. Members to say that there are not many cases where great tragedy is being caused.
Together with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) I have the rather doubtful honour of representing the worst-bombed borough in the country—West Ham. During the war West Ham lost over one-third of all types of living accommodation, and many of its people were bombed out not once but two, three and even four times. They used to traipse back into their houses even if there were no roofs, and no glass in the windows, and even though the ceilings were falling down. They went back and put up with conditions, and made do. They kept going back, and they stayed in their homes throughout the heavy raids which took place on London, and particularly upon the East End.
They stayed, even though the house was falling down around them. Why? Because it was their home and where, in many cases, they had been born and bred. It was the place which recalled happy memories of their childhood; from where they got married and, in some cases, where they brought up their children. Now, through no fault of their own, they are given notice to quit. Some families have lived in the same house for forty or fifty years, and now they are told that they must go. How heartless and wicked and cruel it is—[Laughter.] It is no use hon. Members opposite laughing. Many of them have two or three houses. If they are really anxious about this matter, let them give up one of their own country mansions and not just sit there laughing and jeering at what is really a wicked thing.
This state of affairs is a tragedy. I know that some people will say that the local council should help. But how can the council assist in such circumstances? In my borough we have an enormous housing problem. We lost one-third of all our houses during the war, which means that the local council cannot re-house the bombed-out people. In addition, the council must derequisition all its requisitioned houses because of the action of the Government. The council is also in an awkward position, because it has slum clearance problems to solve and as the slums are cleared the people must be re-housed. Therefore, it is particularly difficult, not only for my borough council but for every other London borough; and the same is true of every industrial borough where there is an urgent housing problem.
I have had cases referred to me—I have passed some of them on to the Minister—involving old ladies of 70 and 80 years of age. One was even 90. They received notice to quit on their birthdays. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter. Hon. Members opposite have no feelings about such matters. How would they feel if their mother had received notice to quit on her ninetieth birthday? It is wicked of hon. Members opposite to laugh at such things.

Captain Richard Pilkington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) has accused hon. Members on this side of the House of laughing at the plight of some of the people whose problems he is describing. Is it in order for the hon. Member to say what is quite untrue, because what hon. Members were laughing at was the provocative manner of the hon. Member for West Ham, North?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for the hon. Member for West Ham, North to say what he did.

Mr. Lewis: I will leave it to the House to judge. I noticed that hon. Members opposite were laughing and I assumed that what I was saying caused them to laugh.
There have been newspaper reports during the last few weeks of suicides of people who have received notices to quit. I am glad that the hon. Member for

Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) nods assent. He may have had this brought to his notice. I know that there are hon. Members opposite who feel about this matter. So I am hoping, as they are all British and would wish to act in a British way, that they will give me their support. I know that some landlords may consider this Motion anti-British, but it makes sense to us on this side of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dulwich, and all hon. Members who are true Britons, do not like the present situation. I am told that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is meeting some hon. Members opposite who are worried about this matter. I understand that the hon. Members concerned represent marginal constituencies. If they feel worried about the situation they have an opportunity now to support this Motion.
Hon. Members opposite who wish to support the principle of the proposed Bill can do so without any fear of affecting the position of the Government. This would be a Private Member's Bill. They do not have to explain to their constituents that they had to vote against it to prevent the Government from falling. There is no fear of that happening. If, as I hope will be the case, leave is given to bring in the Bill, I suggest that hon. Members help by bringing pressure to bear on the Government to ensure its speedy passage through its various stages, even, if need be, by discussing it on the Floor of the House. If hon. Members do not do that, and oppose the Bill, I am confident that at the next General Election many thousands of tenants will remember which way hon. Members voted.

Mr. John Hay: I wish to oppose the Motion and I shall be briefer than was the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis). The test is that the House is being asked to consider a Motion of which it has had quite inadequate notice. This Motion appeared on the Order Paper early this morning, it was handed in by the hon. Member last evening. It is, I think, coming rather close to an abuse of the procedure of the House—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance? If, as is the case, I give notice in accordance


with procedure, and the Clerks at the Table and you, Mr. Speaker, accept that it is in order, is it right for the hon. Member to impute that I am abusing the rules of the House? May I have the protection of the Chair?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with whether what is said is right. I am concerned only with whether it is in order. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) has not, so far, said anything which is out of order.

Mr. Hay: I said that it was coming rather close to an abuse of the procedure of the House to give so short a notice of a matter of this importance. The Opposition must not get up to tricks and larks of this kind.
That leads me to the second reason why I oppose the Motion. The hon. Member made clear what is his real motive, which is to use this House for the purpose of party propaganda. If that be not true, why did he find it necessary to refer to the coming by-elections at Kelvingrove and Rochdale? It would have been much more astute and artistic had the hon. Member put down this Motion for debate on the eve of the Rochdale by-election. He would have derived more propaganda value from it in that way.
The third reason for my opposition is that in the last Session we debated, most exhaustively and at great length, the question of the amount of time which should be given to tenants of houses decontrolled under the provisions of the Rent Act before they became liable to eviction. At that time hon. Members opposite claimed that the period of fifteen months which is in the Act was too short. Most hon. Members on this side of the House thought that the period of fifteen

months was about right. In any event, the House has decided in favour of that period and we cannot go on indefinitely thrashing over this matter again and again.

Up to the present, despite what the hon. Member for West Ham, North says, there is little evidence to show that hardship has as yet been caused by the provisions of the Rent Act—

Mr. Percy Shurmer: The hon. Member had better come to Birmingham.

Mr. Hay: —and many of us who are in touch with these matters think it highly improbable that there will be many evictions after next October.
Even though one may be wrong about that, I consider that the granting of leave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North to introduce this Bill would have a serious effect. During the course of the fifteen months' period, a great many bargains will be struck between landlords and tenants. The evidence available shows that the bargains are reasonably fair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the proposed Bill were introduced and went through its subsequent stages it would inject uncertainty into negotiations going on between landlords and tenants.
The Act appears to be working well and it would be unwise to try to disturb a part of the Measure which has not yet had time to be fully worked out. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Motion.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 238.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowles, F. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Awbery, S. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Delargy, H. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Carmichael, J.
Diamond, John


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Champion, A. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Benson, G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.


Blackburn, F.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Cove, W. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)




Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.


Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Royle, C.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
MacDermot, Niall
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McInnes, J.
Short, E. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Grey, C. F.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Skeffington, A. M.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mahon, Simon
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, J. W.


Hastings, S.
Mason, Roy
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.
Steele, T.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Holmes, Horace
Moss, R.
Swingler, S. T.


Houghton, Douglas
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Usborne, H. C.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Hunter, A. E.
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paton, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.
West, D. G.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jager, George (Goole)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Popplewell, E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Proctor, W. T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Randall, H. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, William
Woof, R. E.


Lawson, G. M.
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Ledger, R. J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES




Mr. Gibson and Mr. Lewis.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Aitken, W. T.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, H. R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Alport, C. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Green, A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Cooke, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.


Arbuthnot, John
Cooper, A. E.
Grimond, J


Armstrong, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Ashton, H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gurden, Harold


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cunningham, Knox
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, H. E.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Davidson, viscountees
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Balniel, Lord
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harrison, A. B. C. (Malden)


Barber, Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macelesf'd)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Drayson, G. B.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Sir James
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bingham, R. M.
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bishop, F. P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Black, C. W.
Fell, A.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Finlay, Graeme
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Holt, A. F.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Hope, Lord John


Brooman-White, R. C.
Freeth, Denzil
Hornby, R. P.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gammans, Lady
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bryan, P.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Burden, F. F. A.
Glover, D.
Howard, John (Test)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J


Campbell, Sir David
Godber, J. B.
Hughes-Young, M. K. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Hulbert, Sir Norman







Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Hutchison, SirlanClark (E'b'gh, W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Roper, Sir Harold


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Mathew, R.
Russell, R. S.


Hyde, Montgomery
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Sharples, R. C.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Shepherd, William


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Soames, Christopher


Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Joseph, Sir Keith
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speir, R. M.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spans, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Keegan, D.
Heave, Airey
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Nicholls, Harmer
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kershaw, J. A.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Che'ch)
Storey, S.


Kimball, M.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Kirk, P. M.
Oakshott, H. D.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Teeling, W.


Leavey, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Temple, John M.


Legge Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Osborne, C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Page, R. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Partridge, E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peel, W. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Peyton, J. W. W.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


McAdden, S. J.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Miss Joan


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.
Wade, D. W.


McKibbin, Alan
Pott, H. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wall, Major Patrick


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Profumo, J. D.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ramsden, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Robertson, Sir David



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir Herbert Butcher and Mr. Hay

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Our colonial debates have for many years past been enriched by the wisdom, the imagination and the wit, of Walter Elliot and here, I think, as much as in any of the fields he adorned we shall miss him a very great deal. I am very conscious of this in introducing today a Bill designed to aid Commonwealth development.
I suppose that for those of us who knew him well for many years the most dramatic moment in Walter Elliot's brave and chivalrous life came during the attack on the Houses of Parliament during the night of 10th May, 1941. Battering down the great doors of Westminster Hall with—as he said—
a combination of conceit and destruction which provided a certain insight into the ecstacy of the iconoclasts,
he, more than anyone else, saved Westminster Hall.
It was very fitting that it should be so, for in many parts of the Commonwealth, perhaps most of all in East and West Africa, he stood in the eyes of a great number of people as the embodiment of the traditions and standards which, after seven centuries of Westminster, we are striving to preserve and to transmit.
It is just a year ago since Walter Elliot used words which can surely be applied to him. He was speaking "of a way", as he said:
we have in Scotland to express our emotion—the way of music which is all its own; it is called a lament. A lament is not a mourning, it is a summing up of life; it is our way to pay our debt to a great figure, to recall him, both in success and in failure, to remember that light and shade cannot be split from each other in the life of man. But in that music there is strength and comfort—the comfort that comes from a life bravely entered upon and bravely carried through.
In a long experience of colleagues of both sides of the House I know of no hon. Member to whom those words more fittingly apply.
The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the policy of the Colonial Development Corporation which was explained in the White Paper of July, 1957, on the United Kingdom's Rôle in Commonwealth Development. Hon. Members who have that White Paper before them will find this set out in some detail in paragraphs 31 to 34. The general purpose of this Bill is, first, to define the extent to which the C.D.C. may operate in Colonial Territories after they become independent and in independent Commonwealth countries generally and, secondly—on this I think there is more agreement—to increase the amount of capital available to the C.D.C.
The general policy we should follow for the Development Corporation in Colonial Territories after independence has been a matter of much discussion and controversy. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House and in both Houses, have argued that the Government themselves should do a great deal more. It is not unusual for this argument to be most strenuously advanced by those very Members who cheer most loudly the sentiment that one of the causes of our national ills comes from trying to do too much at the same time.
The view of the Government has been that the C.D.C. should be able to continue with existing projects, but should not start new ones after independence. We first put that view into legislation in the Ghana Independence Act. As a result of the discussion over that Act we agreed to make a comprehensive review of the rôle of the United Kingdom in Commonwealth development and our conclusions were set out in the White Paper.
This Bill is concerned only with one section of the broad field covered by that White Paper, but I think it valuable for us to remember, in a time of financial stringency and when we are considering again economic development of the Commonwealth, something of the massive contribution which the United Kingdom has made and is making to Commonwealth economic development. As the White Paper pointed out, the average investment, public and private, for the whole Commonwealth over the years 1953 to 1956, added to the special assistance to Colonial Territories, was nearly £200 million a year. As the White Paper said:
Set against the average of our gross national product in that period this represents some 1¼ per cent.


—a figure which should be borne in mind by hon. Members who sometimes suggest that our contribution has been less than that and, given a chance to control our affairs, would raise to a level of 1 per cent. It is now 1¼ per cent.
Put in another way it represents between 7 and 8 per cent. of our gross fixed investment at home.
In the ten years between 1946 and 1955, it is safe to say that 70 per cent. of the external capital investment in the sterling Commonwealth has come from the United Kingdom, 15 per cent. from the United States of America, 10 per cent. from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and 5 per cent. from other sources.
In response to the request from many hon. Members, we had our review and approached it with an open mind and with no preconceived convictions, but the result of the review was to confirm our belief that our policy for the Colonial Development Corporation is the right one. I may perhaps tell the House briefly why we arrived again at that conclusion. In the first place, we have always recognised the special responsibility for the Colonies. This is the justification for the policy of making Exchequer funds available for development in Colonial Territories. We are all citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
The Colonies have not got independent representation at the Geneva Conference on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They look to us to defend them in that field and in every other field. By and large, they provide for revenue purposes free entry for British goods. Throughout their history and association with us they have behaved in a way which makes them entitled to be regarded as just as much our responsibility as the counties of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but our resources are limited and were we to try to spread them over too wide a field the inescapable consequence would be that we would be bound to slip up in our duties to the Colonial Territories.
Our second consideration is that although we retain the closest relations with the Colonies after they have achieved independence, when they have achieved independence our responsibility to them as Colonial Territories comes to

an end. We do not regard Government to Government loans as the normal means of assisting such territories. We believe their interests can best be served if they build up their own credits and are able to use the facilities for raising money on the London money market and elsewhere.
Our third consideration is that it is through the investment of privately-owned funds that the United Kingdom has made its most valuable contribution to other Commonwealth countries. We believe that this is primarily the medium through which further help should come. But we were very impressed by the arguments from both sides of the House, and in another place during the debates on the Ghana Independence Bill, that the experience of the Colonial Development Corporation should be made available in a management capacity to independent countries, and Clause 1 (3) of the Bill provides for that.
May I detain the House a short while on one or two of the more important points in the Clauses. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill excludes from the scope of the C.D.C. Colonial Territories which become independent. Subsection (2) enables the Corporation to continue to exercise its powers in such territories for purposes that were approved before independence subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and also enables it under these circumstances to provide, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, further capital for such purposes.
There is also a proviso permitting modifications or extensions of C.D.C. schemes originally approved before independence. This is for the practical and, I think, obvious reason, that very few schemes, as experience shows, can be carried out exactly as originally planned. In pilot schemes, modifications and extensions must be catered for if the schemes are to come to fruition.
As I said a moment or two ago, many hon. Members argued with strength and sense on the Ghana Independence Bill that the C.D.C. has acquired considerable experience and expertise in dealing with the problems of commercial-type economic development in underdeveloped countries. Hon. Members argued that it was a pity to deprive emergent territories, or even the older Dominions, of this help should they wish to enjoy it.


As we stated in the White Paper, we should be happy to see the Corporation's managerial experience made available to any newly developed Commonwealth country, or, indeed, to any Commonwealth country that might desire it.
Subsection (3) enables the Colonial Development Corporation to act as managing agents or to perform advisory functions in independent Commonwealth countries which want its services. In subsection (5) there is a sentence that reflects the different nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the independent Commonwealth countries on the one hand and the United Kingdom and dependent Colonies on the other.
It is most unlikely that we should ever have to take advantage of this proviso, but it is important to provide that, if a situation should arise in which the managerial or advisory activites of the C.D.C. in an independent territory were embarrassing the general political relations of the United Kingdom with that Commonwealth country, the United Kingdom Government should be able to direct the C.D.C. in any way which is consistent with the wider interests of the United Kingdom's relations with the Commonwealth country concerned.
I do not think for a moment that the situation for which this provides would ever arise, but I think it is prudent to provide in case it should.

Mr. George Chetwynd: What are the right hon. Gentleman's views on subsection (6), which refers to the consent of the Treasury being necessary before any such undertaking can be gone into.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I accept that, but, no doubt it has not escaped notice that references to Treasury consent are thinner in this Bill than they were last week, although I ask the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members not to draw any particular conclusion from that fact.
Clause 2 deals with the increase in the C.D.C.'s capital. Under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, the C.D.C. was empowered to borrow up to £100 million at any one time and have advances of up to £100 million from the Exchequer outstanding at any one time. Actually, the total capital expenditure sanctioned up to January of this year is

£87 million. Further schemes awaiting formal approval total £4 million. Total Colonial Development Corporation commitments are thus getting in sight of the £100 million limit. Of course, actual expenditure lags behind capital sanction, and actual advances outstanding from the Exchequer are only £56 million. There is no question of our having allowed the C.D.C. to run short of cash.
It is desirable to plan ahead. Clause 2 increases the amount which the C.D.C. may borrow and have outstanding at any one time from £100 million to £150 million, and the amount which may be advanced to the Corporation from the Exchequer is increased from £100 million to £130 million outstanding at any one time. The difference between the £130 million and £150 million, which I will expain in greater detail, if need be, in Committee, will be found in paragraph 33 of the White Paper.
The purpose is to give the C.D.C. scope to borrow from sources other than the Exchequer. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, when he winds up, or myself in Committee, will answer any questions that hon. Members may raise on this important matter.
The C.D.C. has been kept in close touch with us throughout the preparation of the Bill. Given the White Paper policy, the Bill has its full support, although it would have preferred it to cover a number of other financial matters about which, I suspect, I may hear something in the debate, for instance, the special losses account. These matters are being studied afresh, but I am not in a position to say more about them at this stage.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Minister be able to say something about them during the progress of the Bill?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think it is unlikely, but as soon as I have anything profitable I will inform the House.
We have been in close touch with the Commonwealth countries—in particular, Ghana and Malaya, two countries that previously enjoyed C.D.C. assistance and do so in the case of continuing schemes—and there have been no comments or criticisms from any of them.
I know that certain hon. Members have from time to time expressed the hope that


the name of the Colonial Development Corporation might be changed to Commonwealth Development Corporation, or a name like that. I am not enamoured of that idea. Its present name most appropriately describes the main function of the C.D.C., namely, to assist Colonial Territories in their development. Any alteration in title would be misleading. It is open to the C.D.C. to conduct its operations in a particular territory or country through a subsidiary company under whatever name it considers appropriate.
I commend the Bill to the House as one designed to help the C.D.C. with its primary function while, at the same time, ensuring, on an agency basis, that the considerable experience and skill it has built up with such devotion over the last few years shall be also made available to independent Commonwealth countries.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: Before I speak about the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I trust that you will allow me to say with what regret we on this side of the House heard of the death of Walter Elliot. We are very glad that the Minister took the opportunity today of expressing the sentiments of all of us about his passing. It seems strange to think that we shall not see him sitting in the third bench below the Gangway. On Friday there is to be a debate in the House about procedure, with particular reference, I am sure, to Privy Councillors—a debate in which, I imagine, he would have had a number of observations to make. It is very sad to see the way in which the waters roll over hon. Members and they are gone. We all feel a sense of personal loss about his sudden death.
I heard of Walter Elliot many times in the 1930s, when he was a most distinguished Minister, occupying many posts. To me, he was a name in the newspapers when I was fighting my battle in the local wards. When, to my surprise, I found myself here in 1945, I discovered that he had been defeated, but shortly afterwards I met him because he was returned at a by-election.
After he had been introduced and walked up to Mr. Speaker, as everyone does, I walked out of the Chamber and was on my way to the Library. He

stopped me and said, "Good afternoon. I should like to introduce myself. My name is Walter Elliot." Every back bench Member holds every Privy Councillor in awe, and when one has been here for only about three months one holds Privy Councillors in particular awe. That simplicity and modesty on the part of Walter Elliot was something which I have never forgotten, and I think it summed up his whole life.
After that, we got to know each other very well. We travelled together on various missions, mostly employed by the B.B.C. We did television shows together, we did "Any Questions?" together, we argued and talked long into the night after the programmes had ended. I never ceased to marvel at his well-stocked memory, his fund of anecdotes, his apt remark and analogy for whatever we were discussing. He was a man who enriched life whenever one met him.
I should like to say to Mrs. Elliot that we trust very much that the years which lie ahead of her will continue to be full of joy and of the public service in which she has herself played a very notable part. I think that the manner of his death was probably as he would have wished. The words of John Donne are particularly appropriate to Walter Elliot:
Neither death whensoever it shall come may seem terrible, nor life tedious how long so ever it shall last.
Death was certainly not terrible to Walter Elliot and life could never be tedious to those of us who knew him.
We welcome the Bill in so far as it increases the amount which is allocated to overseas resources development. I had hoped that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with his well-known affection for public enterprise, would have reminded us of the success story of the Colonial Development Corporation. We know from his record that he would have been proud to say, "Here is a public Corporation which is succeeding and which last year made a profit of £572,800." It would perhaps have been too much to expect him to say that had it not been for the extortionate rates of interest which are the result of the Government's credit policy the profit would have been much higher and might well have been £700,000. Nevertheless, I am sorry that we did not hear him say it.
The very success of the Colonial Development Corporation is of such a character that it shows up in marked relief the folly of the Government's present economic and financial policy. It is true that the advances to the Colonial Development Corporation are financed by the Treasury—that is, by the people of the country—from below-the-line surpluses, and the shape of the Budget therefore determines very much the amount of the investment which can be undertaken in the Colonial Development Corporation. It is, therefore, not surprising that when the former Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to relieve Surtax payers of many millions of pounds of taxation, as he did last year, the amount available for investment in the Colonial Development Corporation became much less than it would otherwise have been.
I very much agree with sentiments often expressed by hon. Members opposite that an outflow of capital from these islands can be very dangerous if it is not matched by savings within the island. It can lead to one of two consequences—either to stagnation in home industry and unemployment, as we had in the 1930s because we failed to bring our own industries up to date when there was a large outflow of capital abroad, or to inflation, which is the situation from which we have suffered in all the years since the end of the war.
While we welcome this extension of another £50 million of capital, I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this tiny amount—and it is a tiny amount—is smaller than it need otherwise have been because of the budgetary policy which the Government have pursued. After all, in 1948, within three years of the end of the war, the Government were committing us to the expenditure of £100 million on colonial investment. Now, nearly thirteen years after the end of the war, all we can find is £50 million, which in terms of 1948 prices is no more than about £30 million. The Colonial Secretary has not much cause to boast about the extension of the sum in this way. A tiny sum is now being put aside for colonial investment and we should recognise it as such. I do not know whether it is because he is setting aside this relatively tiny sum that he is limiting the C.D.C. activities in the way

that he described or whether ideological considerations led him to limit the Corporation's activities in this way. Whatever the reason, we object to it.
As far as I can see, the reasons which have been advanced either by the right hon. Gentleman or by others in another place are threefold. The argument used by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in another place was that these emerging territories must not rely upon the British taxpayer. As reported in column 1304 of 17th July of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place, he said:
I think it is really no contribution to the independence and status of those emerging countries to give them the impression that they can rely endlessly on the British taxpayer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 17th July, 1957; Vol. 204, c. 1304.]
The second reason which has been advanced is that the emerging territories might be affronted if they were offered this activity by the C.D.C. The third reason which has been advanced is that there is plenty of work to be done in the Colonies which remain to us.
I think that the argument used by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has no validity at all. It certainly is not the policy adopted by other countries. The United States does not adopt this policy in connection with Mutual Aid; it does not say that other countries must not rely upon the American taxpayer. The United States has invested overseas under Mutual Aid and other equivalent programmes about 3,000 million dollars in the Colombo Plan alone. Nor does the U.S.S.R. take this line. Indeed, we ourselves do not take it. In the Colombo Plan alone Britain has invested about £90 million, the Canadian Government £70 million, and the Australian Government £22 million.
The plain truth is that we all recognise that this is not a form of aid. It is an investment which not only raises the standard of life and diversifies the economies of those countries but also is of material benefit to us. To put it in terms of relying endlessly on the British taxpayers seems to me to reduce it well below the level which is justified.
It is said that other channels are available to these emerging territories, and the right hon. Gentleman relied on the Commonwealth Development Finance Company in his defence of the argument


that the C.D.C. should not be allowed to expand. I noticed that the Colonial Secretary did not advance that as a reason and he was right not to do so; because with whatever hopes the Commonwealth Development Finance Company started out, not even with the best will in the world can they be said to have been justified.
The Commonwealth Development Finance Company is a finance house. The capital issued, so far as I can find, is £ 1½ million. It has been able to invest in a dozen projects in different Commonwealth countries. That is the limit of its activities since it has been set up. It is quite clear that it has neither the funds nor the expertese, the knowledge or the technical skill to do the job in the emerging territories that the Colonial Development Corporation has been doing so far.
The Colonial Secretary should recognise and admit that in cutting off the Colonial Development Corporation from the emerging territories, and in cutting off the emerging territories from the Colonial Development Corporation on the very day that they achieve their independence, in the matter of supplying finance for purposes of development over there, he is creating a vacuum which is not filled by the Commonwealth Development Finance Company, or, indeed, by any other institution. This is a great weakness in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has not faced. It is one reason why we shall have to move Amendments at a later stage to try to include these developing emerging territories in the purview of the Bill.
I do not understand the logic of the Colonial Secretary's argument when he says that the Government were impressed by the arguments that were put forward that the Colonial Development Corporation should have the opportunity and the right, subject to the right hon. Gentleman's control and agreement, to manage concerns in these emerging territories but should not be free to invest in them. He did not give an answer this afternoon to show why, if somebody is allowed to manage someone else's concern, he should not be allowed to have a financial stake in it. It seems to me to be quite illogical and, what is more, not justified on the basis of the facts that we know, namely, that a gap is being left when these territories become independent. I should have

thought that it was in the interests of all of us that this gap should be filled.
The major weakness lies in the Government's conception of the Colonial Development Corporation. They have tried to separate its commercial activities from its social purpose, but the two things are always bound to be intertwined. I imagine that in a general discussion there would probably be agreement among us that commercial and policy aims are usually intertwined in what one is doing. In all their references throughout the Bill, however, the Government act as though the only test to be applied is whether a proposition makes a profit, and, what is more, makes a profit at 7 per cent.
Of course, I agree that these propositions that the Colonial Development Corporation undertakes should be operated economically, but the Corporation has a wider purpose than the mere making of a profit at 7 per cent. in order to pay its interest to the Government.

Mr. Norman Pannell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member shakes his head. I should like to explain why the Corporation has a wider purpose and I draw my basic reason from what was said in the original Act.
The 1948 Act said, in Section 7, that the policy of the Colonial Development Corporation must have particular regard for the interests of the inhabitants of the territory. In other words, this is not merely a simple company set up with a view to seeing whether it can make a profit. It is not something that can be separated from policy. The two ends—social and commercial—were intertwined. The major weakness of the Government is that they have all the time been attempting to separate these two ends. The Government's restrictions throughout the Bill are all aimed to make profit the only test.
That is a very narrow view to take of Britain's Commonwealth responsibilities. It reduces the vision of the Commonwealth to the width of entries in a countinghouse ledger. The Colonial Development Corporation was not set up with that narrow object in mind and it is because the Government seem constantly to be squeezing it into a position in which it is no more than another commercial enterprise that we on this side consider


that they are failing to carry out the original purposes of the Act.
In the Bill, the Government are proposing to give to the Colonial Development Corporation permission to borrow money—presumably privately, as distinct from the advances that are to be made by the Government. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations winds up the debate he will tell us a little more about these borrowing powers. What are to be the conditions under which the C.D.C. will be able to borrow privately? I take it that the Corporation will not be able to raise equity capital. Indeed, having discussed the matter with some of my hon. Friends, I think it would be quite wrong that the Corporation should be able to do so, although I know that this is one of Lord Reith's strong desires.
Will the Colonial Development Corporation be able, for example, to give as security for its borrowings a charge on its existing assets? I should have thought that it was reasonable that it should be allowed so to do, but as this has not yet been made clear I should very much like an answer.
What will be the rôle of the Treasury? Will the Treasury be able and be willing, and will it be its policy, to guarantee such loans or will the Corporation stand on its own without any Treasury backing? These things are obviously of considerable moment to the Colonial Development Corporation, and the House would like to know what are the Government's intentions in this direction.
I have said that I disagreed with Lord Reith's view, as I understand it, that there should be some equity capital. I know the reason why he advances this view, namely, that every commercial company should have a buffer of equity capital to take the loss on its pilot schemes and to take the loss on its investigations before a return can be expected to come in. Lord Reith's view is that if he has to pay 7 per cent. on every penny, from first to last, without any buffer of equity capital, he is being asked commercially to do something that no other commercial concern is being asked to do.
I think that Lord Reith has a complaint here, even though the remedy he suggests is wrong. Will the Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations tell us the views of the Government about this?

The hon. Gentleman will get a great deal of instruction from the pamphlet, which I see he is reading, on the Labour Party's policy for the Colonies, but he will not find the anwer there; at least, he will find it only partially.
Do the Government consider that Lord Reith and the Colonial Development Corporation do not have a complaint? I think that the Corporation does have a complaint. After all, a number of its ventures have failed and from some of them the Corporation or its private enterprise companions have withdrawn because they have found that the cost of providing the social furniture as well as putting up the money to make the commercial venture pay has been too high. We all know that when a company goes to set up its operations, the building of houses and roads and the provision of all the necessary things that we have in this country do not exist in many of the overseas territories.
One possibility which the Labour Party pamphlet does canvass—perhaps that was what the Under-Secretary was looking for—is that the Colonial Development Corporation might have a colonial development and welfare float of its own: in other words, that in the same way as the Government provide colonial development and welfare advances precisely for the purpose of building houses and roads and the making of communications and the rest, so the Colonial Development Corporation should be able to take advantage of that, subject, of course, to the consent of the Government, to get its commercial ventures going.
I advance this as a reason only because the Government are insisting so heavily upon the commercial nature of the Colonial Development Corporation. If they insist upon that as its primary purpose, it is reasonable to ask what the Government will do to help the Corporation in this particular respect. I have made the point, and perhaps we might be told the Government's views about it.
We resist that conception of the Colonial Development Corporation and its reasons for existence. The basic fact, the starting point, in all these territories—as must be borne in upon all of us—is their poverty. It is that which we seek to relieve through the many agencies which we have. I am not an economist, but, as I understand, it is the shortage of


domestic capital which prevents economic investment. One can have economic investment only when there are savings, and if countries are living on a margin above subsistence which prevents any saving there cannot be investment, and, it follows, there cannot be economic development.
The whole purpose, as I see it, of the Colonial Development Corporation and other activities of this sort is to inject the foreign capital necessary to save them from trying to hoist themselves by their own boot-straps. This is the aid—aid only in that sense—which is given to them. If the Colonial Development Corporation were conceived by the Government as being a body designed to fulfil that purpose, a number of the very restrictions contained here would disappear. We must bring the territories out of the vicious circle in which they are today.
I view the future of the Colonial Territories with some alarm. At the very moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is claiming credit, in his usual modest way—I mean that—for the improvement in the balance of payments in this country, what he is saying, in effect, is that the balance of payments of Ghana, Malaya and Rhodesia have deteriorated and shown a turn for the worse, for an improvement in our balance of payments is a deterioration in theirs. This is incontrovertible.
What has happened in all these territories is that the prices they are obtaining for their primary products, whether minerals or crops, are falling to a level which is, in some cases, little better than catastrophic. To take one illustration, the fall in the price of copper in the Rhodesias from £465 a ton to £165 a ton, a fall of £300, must have catastrophic effects upon the revenues of those territories; and there are territories not nearly so wealthy as the Rhodesias which will suffer in precisely the same way. I believe that we may well be at the beginning of a world depression, unless the United States of America, the major factor in this connection, is ready to take the essential steps to prevent the depression which will, first of all, hit these territories.
I welcome the Bill in the sense that it sets aside another £50 million. I do not think that it is anything like enough for

the purposes which we have just been talking about, and it will really be but a drop in the bucket if the fall in the price of primary products and commodities which has so far taken place is not shortly reversed. The Colonial Development Corporation, as an organisation, could never begin to reverse that worldwide trend. Nevertheless, it is one of the organs which can assist in maintaining a stable level of prices. It is certainly one of the organs which should be used to help the Colonies out of the difficulties in which they find themselves through their own basic, inherent poverty.
We therefore welcome the introduction of the Bill. We believe that it is not adequate, though we shall not vote against it because, if we were to do so, we should be voting against another £50 million being devoted to this purpose. The Colonial Secretary will not, however, be surprised to hear that, during the Committee stage, we shall have a number of Amendments to put down, upon which we shall have to test the Government.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you and the House will allow me to say a word or two in memory of Walter Elliot. I should like to join in what has already been said by the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
I did not, of course, know Walter Elliot for very long, as many hon. Members did, nor can I speak of his official career, but I did know him as a friend both here and at his home on the borders of Scotland. I believe that it may be as a friend and as a philosopher in the strict sense that he will be ultimately remembered. He was, of course, an eager and, indeed, passionate politician, but his life was a standing protest against the managerial view of politics. His politics arose from his interest in life, people and ideas—never being allowed to dominate his thinking or his actions. Walter Elliot was a humanist, a lover of literature, of history and of science, a man all too rare, I fear, in politics today. I believe that we shall miss him more than we miss, perhaps, many more apparently successful men. But, however much we miss him, his widow and his relations must miss him far more, and I should like to join in sending our sympathy to them.
I wish to say but a few words about the Bill. I feel that we are missing an opportunity to catch the imaginative possibilities which the Commonwealth offers. Incidentally, I believe also that we are inclined to take too many bites at the cherry. In 1956 we had the Overseas Resources Development Act, and this year we have the Overseas Resources Development Bill and the Overseas Services Bill; but in none of them do we meet the real, long-term need. We shall have to repeat the process in a year or two. We are only putting off the day when we must face the question of the long-term structure of the Commonwealth.
The quite obvious difficulty is that the Commonwealth requires a great deal of capital and we have not an adequate surplus to invest in it. On the other hand, there are the colonial balances in this country, the withdrawal of which for investment would create a very disturbing situation for us. I suggest that this points the need for some further development of Commonwealth economic institutions and some decision as to what is to be our long-term plan for the financing not only of the Colonies but of the emergent Colonies as they reach self-government.
First of all, we must face the need to make a much bigger effort at home in order to earn and save the surplus necessary. Unless we do that, no amount of help to the Colonial Development Corporation or other institutions will be really effective. Secondly, we shall probably have to enlist outside aid. Putting it quite plainly, we should get together with Canada, and the U.S.A., for instance, to see what they are prepared to do. There is also the possibility of tapping other international sources of money. I would much rather that money from these outside sources were canalised through a development authority of the type we are now discussing than in any other suggested way, because I regard the development authority as an interesting development in the sort of mixed economy which is growing up in the Commonwealth.
I wish that the Secretary of State could have said a little more—perhaps whoever is to wind up will do so—about the Government's view on the tapping of sources

outside this country, having regard particularly to what I call cross-fertilisation within the Commonwealth. We are, I think, guilty of not doing what we can to ensure that the Dominions and Colonies themselves take an interest in other parts of the Commonwealth. I have in mind Canada interesting herself in the West Indies. She is, I know, very interested on the private level. I feel that there are problems in the Commonwealth which, in many ways, can be more easily dealt with by other Commonwealth countries than by ourselves.
With those few words I, too, welcome the Bill as far as it goes. While I realise the difficulty of drafting Bills which give effect to the sort of ideas that I have no doubt the Secretary of State would like to give effect to, I believe that, in the long run, we have to face rather altered conceptions of Commonwealth planning than are embodied in this Measure.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and this time I find myself in full agreement with him. I find myself in much less agreement with the economic and, in some ways, ultimate social argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He compared this country's effort with that of the United States of America, particularly under the Colombo Plan. It is unfair to do that. The United States of America is the world's richest creditor, whereas we are the world's greatest debtor—

Mr. Callaghan: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I said.

Mr. Tilney: Nor could I understand his argument denying the rôle of a finance house to the C.D.C. I see nothing wrong in the C.D.C. being a finance house. In fact, I should like to see the money of the Colonial Development Corporation invested only when more money than is put in by it is invested by either companies or individuals who know how to run an industry in the territories concerned. I find it very difficult to believe that one can run a multitude of different industries from London—

Mr. Callaghan: As there will probably be many more people who will read the hon. Member's speech than will read


mine, perhaps I might interpose to say that I cid not say either of those two things.

Mr. Tilney: At least the hon. Gentleman will agree that he said that £100 million, I think, had been allocated in 1948, and that he thought that the C.D.C. had proved a success. I find it very hard to believe that an organisation which has lost over £8 million—admittedly under a pre-1951 régime—is a great success. I cannot believe that it is sensible to invest very hard-won capital so badly that a loss is incurred rather than a profit made. In the end, that is not a good thing for the social services for which the economic development must ultimately pay.
I welcome this Bill in its limited form. It prohibits the C.D.C. from starting new projects in emergent territories, it allows it to undertake managing agency business, and it increases its long-term and medium-term borrowing, but I regret that it does not, at the same time, deal with the capital structure. I think that some part of that capital should be in equity form. Otherwise, I do not see how pilot projects can be paid for, and the C.D.C. is unnecessarily saddled with interest on capital that has been spent either on checking, by means of a pilot project, or by a general investigation of some project that cannot, of its very nature, be expected to make a profit.
It would be much better, therefore, if not only could the C.D.C. have equity in its capital, but could also be able to write off its past losses. Incidentally, those losses are very much more than the £8 million mentioned, because no account has yet been taken of the interest unpaid in the last six years. This is hardly the success story the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East pretends. On the other hand, the Colonial Development Corporation has been acting in difficult circumstances. One of them is that the rate of interest is not known to a certainty at the start of any project. It should surely be possible, when planning an investment in industry, to know exactly what rate of interest will have to be paid on the money borrowed, and I think that the sooner that is put right the better.
This Measure, however, really only touches on the main problem in the ideological cold war, that of investment in the under-developed territories. In

the late autumn, I had the privilege of going to West Africa for five weeks. Both in Ghana and in Nigeria I met many friends of the late Walter Elliot, who admired him immensely for his work there, especially in education. The premiers whom I met, both in Ghana and Nigeria, all want British help to continue.
It was quite remarkable to me how popular British technical and other advice is, but I do not see how we can possibly get all the money that is required for such projects as the Bornu Railway extension, the Escravos Bar and, in Ghana, the Volta River scheme. We just have not got the money in this country. We have to do as suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—bring in the United States, and also the creditor countries in Europe.
I should like to see the C.D.F.C. do more than it has done, although I think that the implication of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that all it has invested is its £1½ million of capital is a little unfair. It has borrowed a substantial amount of money and has reinvested it overseas.

Mr. Callaghan: Under £3 million.

Mr. Tilney: I have not the figures with me, but I think that the figure is now over £10 million.

Mr. Callaghan: As I understand it, it is authorised to borrow only twice as much as its authorised capital.

Mr. Tilney: I have not the Report with me, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the figure he will find that it is bigger than he thinks.
I am a believer in private enterprise, and I welcomed what my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) did when, in the last Finance Bill, he created overseas trade corporations. I should here declare an interest as being a director of a company that trades throughout West Africa and has recently put more money into West Africa. On the other hand, there are many in private enterprise who look at what has happened in Egypt—and particularly at what has happened in Indonesia—and who say that they would prefer not to invest in under-developed lands.
Could not the C.D.C. consider this major political problem and, possibly,


create some form of insurance, not putting up any money itself, but guaranteeing the investment of private enterprise against political sequestration or nationalisation? If it did that, I believe that a large sum of money might well be invested in different territories of the Commonwealth without the Government themselves putting up any money. These political risks are, I believe, less than many directors of private companies—and public companies—think, and I hope that those who are now running the C.D.C. very much more efficiently than it was run in the years gone by will consider that problem.
When the Government come to consider the new capital structure of the Colonial Development Corporation, I hope they will not be beguiled by the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but will take their lesson from the heavy losses that have occurred and will make sure that well-won capital and wealth is sensibly invested.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: The speech of the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) reveals the dilemma which faces the House in trying to work out the best policy for our Colonial Territories.
On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman seemed to welcome this Bill because of the limitations it imposes. He is all in favour of a very strict financial and commercial approach, and yet, in the next part of his speech, he wanted something to be done urgently for political reasons in the under-developed parts of the world. Surely, he cannot have it both ways. If we are to aid the under-developed parts of the world, which is our objective, we cannot do it on a strict accountancy basis. There are a good many imponderables, political, social and economic, which cannot be weighed up in that kind of way, and that is precisely why this set-up of the C.D.C. itself is an example of the remarkable dilemma of just how to reconcile its objective of developing the Colonies in the interests of their inhabitants and, at the same time, taking one year with another, breaking even. It is difficult enough to do that in the developed areas with all the necessary capital resources at our disposal, but how much more difficult it is in countries

where there are no basic facilities whatever is only just being realised.
The objects of the Corporation, as I understand them from its Report for 1955, are, first of all, to show that it is its duty to help the economic development of British dependent territories, and, in the process, to have special regard to the interests of their inhabitants, irrespective of race, colour, confession or anything else. That is the prime object, and anyone who has visited any of our territories overseas knows how great is the need for that. Secondly, it makes it quite clear that the C.D.C. itself is not responsible for comprehensive planning and social services, and that, whatever it does, its commercial profitability must be an essential factor of its operations. I find it extremely hard to see how it can work under those conditions.
On the one hand, we have the colonial development and welfare funds doing one job with the colonial Governments and the C.D.C. doing another, and I must say that I am moving towards some amalgamation of the two, either into a single body or a very close integration to make sure that we can do both these jobs satisfactorily.
I want to say a few words about the work that has been done and still needs to be done by the Development Corporation. First of all, I wish that the Corporation did not produce its Report written in such shorthand as it seems to do, and that it would give us some story and put some flesh and blood on the bones of the Report. If so, it would greatly help us to dispel some misconceptions about the work which it is doing. I should like to see a much fuller Report written in decent English, and not just in shorthand notes, which I find very difficult to follow.
In any case, I want to refer to the possibility of extending its work now that it will have more resources at its disposal in certain parts of the West Indies. I am not referring to the major islands there, though they have difficulties and are much better placed to deal with them than the smaller islands, which have no mineral resources and have had no great tourist attraction so far. In particular, I hope it will be possible for an extra effort to be made in Antigua, St. Lucia and Grenada. I think the poverty there is more striking than in


the other islands, and I believe that there is a fundamental task facing the Government there, because they are solely dependant, more or less, on agriculture and the raising of food crops.
It is not easy in this area, where there are very few services, where there are certainly very good main roads, but where the roads leading to the hinterland are poor and inadequate, where the services that are necessary for getting the people to and from the islands are still not good enough, and where housing, education, hospital services and so on are still very much under-developed. I do not see how, when we are trying to develop on a commercial basis, we can possibly do it where the basic services are so inadequate.
It is like the situation in some of our Development Areas in this country, which were the distressed areas before the war, and where it became perfectly apparent in tackling the problem that not only had there to be commercial development but we had to spend much more money in getting the basic services going—roads, gas, electricity and so on—and the same thing applies in the islands in the West Indies.
I was particularly struck out there by the wide gap which exists between the best and the worst. There are some things which are very good indeed, and if only the average could be brought up to something approaching their standard, we could make real progress. I should like the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to the situation in St. Lucia, which has this problem, and is probably the most difficult of the islands into which to get capital. There is a particular problem at Fort Vieux because of the de-re-activation of the U.S.A. base. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is a base which was de-activated, then re-activated, and has now been de-re-activated. Whatever the word is, it is now not in use, and that has left the whole area round Fort Vieux in a very depressed condition indeed.
I should have thought that there, where we have a good area of land, with the services necessary to supply the United States base, it would be possible for the C.D.C. to set up some project which would absorb the labour now unemployed, and I should rate that as amongst

the highest priorities in that part of the world.
Nevertheless, there is much basic work to be done in all these territories, and in particular in providing roads to help agriculturists in the interior to get their bananas to the distribution point. There is a terrific lot of work to be done in the development of livestock and the improvement of fisheries in all these areas, in which, perhaps, fish could help very much along with locally produced meat to improve the diet standards of the in habitants. I believe that there is an opportunity, and I know from its Report that the C.D.C. is assisting this in the drive in tourism and in the building of hotels and so on.
I am not sure that this is all that wise in some of these areas. It is a detraction from the fundamental economy of the islands, and although it may be necessary to cash in on the current vogue for visiting the West Indies from America, I should not like to see too much emphasis placed on tourism in certain of these islands as a permanent remedy for their economic ills. I do not think it is. Our main purpose is to concentrate on agriculture and food production, and we should only use tourism as an expedient at the moment to get much-needed dollars.
In all these areas where the removal of poverty is such a crying need and where the demand for capital is so great, we can see that little is able to be done by the people in the islands themselves. We have to look to every possible source to induce fresh capital, because so many jobs have to be done. Perhaps one of the great advantages which will flow from federation in the West Indies is that it will make much more regional planning possible and enable more to be done for the benefit of the area as a whole and not just for one of the individual territories.
Then, of course, a tremendous link is growing up between the West Indies and Canada which is being and should be greatly encouraged. The C.D.C. itself obviously has been able to prime the pump of economic development in certain areas, but it is only able to provide a fraction of the things that are necessary. Whatever money we get in from Canada or anywhere else, there is still a heavy burden to fall on the different Colonies themselves, and one of the major obstacles they


are facing in trying to get economic and social development is the effect of the present high Bank Rate here and the capacity for borrowing.
I met that complaint wherever I went. It will be extremely difficult to expand and to go in for housing projects and the like because of the difficulty caused by the high Bank Rate. Capital is being encouraged to flow in and I should prefer as much of it as possible to be British. It would be wrong if we lost that link between us and the colonial dependencies. The most important fact that we have to bear in mind is that the more backward a country is the more difficult it is to import capital into it. That is precisely why I welcome the establishment of the C.D.C. which ought to be able, under its original instructions, to take a less financial approach to these things, to take more risks and to be more dynamic.
One of the reasons why there is this economic difficulty is that private enterprise has not found it profitable to go there and do these jobs; and we cannot expect a Government agency to operate on the same level. Surely it must have more latitude and discretion in the projects it undertakes. It is learning rapidly from experience. Management has improved and the Corporation has made a fairly substantial working profit this year. But if we are to expect basic things such as roads and hospitals to be made available at the same time, if that is part of the cost of development, it ought not to be borne by the C.D.C. It ought to be borne by the colonial development and welfare funds in co-operation with the C.D.C., and by special loans from Government to Government.
Nevertheless, the work which has been done will be useful. It is bringing about economic development and, in some of the larger areas, the industrial development that is necessary. Therefore, although I disagree with the Government's views on the Bill, and with the restrictions which they place on the future development of emergent territories, I feel that we have to be grateful for the expansion that is being provided so far and have to hope that very soon the Corporation will come again and ask for larger sums.
Another point which I do not think has been dealt with so far in the debate is the

question of special losses. I believe that we have now reached a stage at which we cannot expect the C.D.C. to bear these any longer. Losses on the pre-1951 commitments which were abandoned amounted to about £8 million. The interest has been waived on nearly £6 million of it. I should have thought that even if the Government cannot go the whole way and write off all the losses they could at least waive the interest on the full amount and relieve the C.D.C. of the obligation to pay that interest on the special losses capital.
Another point which has been mentioned is the bad influence of constantly changing rates of interest and the higher rates of interest which the Corporation has to pay. The Corporation states in its latest Report that jobs have had to be completed with money which sometimes cost double the original budget. I do not see how the Corporation can plan intelligently on that basis. It is a fact now, of course, that high interest rates are slowing down colonial developments throughout the colonial dependencies, and the effect is worse in these islands where the need is greatest.
Another feature which runs through the Government's whole policy, in their approach to Remploy and the development areas at home and now in their approach to colonial development, is that what starts off as a more or less joint venture between social service and economic development has shed its social content in the past few years and now relies solely on profitability. I do not think that we can work on that basis in the Colonies, and I do not think that we should expect the Corporation to run its affairs on those lines. In Committee on the Bill I hope that we shall be able to make some improvement in these matters.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I should like to preface my remarks by adding my modest tribute to those already voiced to the memory of Walter Elliot. As one who was actively associated with West Africa for many years, I am aware of his deep and abiding interest in the territories there and how much his wise counsel was appreciated in the difficult days of transition from colonial to independent status. He will be sorely missed.
I hope I shall be excused if I do not follow too closely the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), because I wish to develop one special point in connection with the Bill. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to increase the advances from the Colonial Office to the Colonial Development Corporation from £100 million to £130 million outstanding at any one time. It is pertinent for us to examine what the Colonial Development Corporation has done with the money it has already drawn. According to the last accounts available at 31st December, 1956, that money amounted to something over £51 million, and of that £51 million the sum of £40 million had been drawn in long-term advances and the balance mostly in medium-term advances.
According to the arrangement between the Colonial Office and the C.D.C., these long-term advances are repayable over thirty-three years to commence within seven years from the next 31st March after the advances have been made. Interest, however, commences to run from the date of the advance, and at the rates moving at the time of the advance. Some of these capital repayments have now become due, but it is not possible to gather from the Corporation's Report and Accounts how much had fallen due by 31st December, 1956. In support of what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, I would say that the Report is extremely cryptic and even staccato in its presentation, but we find that there is provision in the accounts for interest of £29,000 accrued at 31st December, 1956, on annual payments noted by the Colonial Office as due on 31st March, 1957. We also find that at that date there was outstanding accrued interest of £6,800,000. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to the profit which the Corporation had made in 1956. I hope to demonstrate that the Corporation, in fact, made a very substantial loss.
Let us look at the accounts. In the profit and loss account of 31st December, 1956, there is brought forward a debit balance of £1,900,000. The profit for the year, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East stated, was £572,000. Therefore, the net loss carried to the balance-sheet is reduced to £1,382,000. To that we must add the special losses appertaining to the unfortunate adventures

embarked on prior to 1951 amounting to over £8 million. Furthermore, we must add the interest accrued up to 31st December, 1956, of £6,800,000. If we add those three figures together, a loss of over £16 million is disclosed from the commencement of operations of the Corporation ten years ago.
Is it making a profit today? I maintain that the profit is entirely fictitious. The £51 million of the Colonial Development Corporation is invested as to £32 million in mortgage advances, loans and shares. That £32 million gave a return in 1956 of just over £1 million or 3 per cent. That is certainly much lower than the rate at which the C.D.C. is borrowing money today. The balance of the £51 million is presumably invested in what are called direct projects, and they gave a return of £350,000. So there is a gross profit of £1,350,000, which is reduced to the £572,000 mentioned by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East.
What is the interest accruing each year? There is no mention of that in the accounts. We know that there was an amount outstanding of £6,800,000 at December, 1956, but it is clear that on the £40 million of long-term advances the interest cannot be less than 4 per cent. on average, or £1,600,000 a year. So we have the position that the Corporation claims a profit of £572,000 despite the fact that it has not included in its accounts any mention of the interest charge of over £1½ million which accrued during that year.
It is evident that the Corporation is still working at a substantial loss, and will continue to do so unless there is a dramatic improvement in the profitability of the concerns in which it has invested. With interest rates now running higher than ever before—I believe the current rate is 6 per cent.—the prospects of a profit in the future would appear to be distinctly unpromising.
I admit freely that a great improvement has occurred in recent years in the operations of the Corporation. I agree that the grandiose schemes originally embarked upon are things of the past. I also concede that the investments which the Corporation is making are of great assistance to many under-developed countries in the Commonwealth. For that reason I support the Bill, but I ask the House not to delude itself into believing


that the Corporation is working at a profit or that it is likely to do so next year or in the measurable future. The interest charges which would normally accrue at the rate of between £1½ and £2 million a year, preclude that possibility.
The accounts for 1957 will be presented later this year. If my right hon. Friend has any influence in this matter, I ask him to exert it on the C.D.C. to induce it to produce accounts on a commercially approved scale, showing all the losses that have been incurred and all the expenses that have arisen during the year in regard to interest and other charges. If that picture is shown clearly, we shall be able to face squarely the situation that the Corporation has already lost £16 million and is likely to lose a great deal more in the future in present circumstances. At the same time, if that clear picture is produced, the House may be encouraged to reassess the basis on which the C.D.C. is working, and to ensure that it either becomes a profitable enterprise or that reasonable annual losses are written off as a contribution by this country to colonial and Commonwealth development.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) on the line he has taken, but I wish to consider this Bill from a point of view different from those which have been mentioned already. With reservations, I welcome the Bill as another step along the road which was opened in 1948. That was a narrow road, and it has widened but very little in the years which have since passed. Now it is proposed to widen it a little further, but, in my submission, not enough.
This series of Statutes, which began in 1948, was designed to help Colonies, but not other British territories, and its potentialities were at that time narrow but have grown a little wider. They have not grown wide enough and they are not suited to the age in which we live, for reasons which I hope to give. The fact that the road is not wide enough creates grave dangers for the Commonwealth. The Bill fails to envisage the dangers in not helping all kinds of British overseas territories and in not helping them sufficiently according to their needs. I shall

mention some of these dangers under four heads.
One lies in the peculiar characteristics of this age of power politics. The need today is greater than ever it was before to preserve the solidarity of the Empire and of the Commonwealth, and the Bill fails to envisage the financial help which is available to British territories from foreign countries. Therein lies the temptation to all British territories, whether they are still Colonies, whether they are Colonies on their way to self-government, whether they have self-government, whether they are on the way from self-government to independence, or whether they have actually achieved independence.
All these five kinds of territories are under a strong temptation to accept outside capital, foreign capital, and thereby undermine their connection with, and perhaps unhappily their loyalty to, the Empire or to the Commonwealth as the case may be. Such foreign capital has been offered—as we all know—but it is seldom offered without strings. If Britain will not fully endow her own territories, fully and completely, foreign nations will do so, with strings. Therein lies great danger.
I ask the Government to consider the Bill in the wide context of the solidarity of the Empire and the Commonwealth. It should take into account the envious eyes which from East and West are cast on the solidarity of the Empire and Commonwealth. Foreign nations view it in political and military terms as a world Power. Foreign capitalists view it as a field for exploitation and have exposed its constituent parts to divided interests, divided loyalties and the danger of Empire and Commonwealth disintegration.
It should be the intention in this age and generation, which is very different from 1948 when the first Measure was introduced, to minimise and negative those dangers by supplying the constituent parts of the Empire and the Commonwealth with all the capital they require in the fullest measure. The Bill does not do so, and although it is called a Colonial Resources Bill it is not coupled with all the resources which ought to be available from Britain and which ought to be available to the constituent nations of the Commonwealth.
I know that we live in a time when money is scarce. I know that we live in a time when there has been a quarrel between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Prime Minister. I know that we live in a time when it may be said that we cannot find more money for various causes, but no cause can be more important than this, the solidarity of the Empire and of the Commonwealth.
The limitations of the Bill are clear. Its purpose is to amend the law under which the Colonial Development Corporation acts. Its purpose is further to extend areas in which the Corporation may operate and to increase the sums available. Clause 1 (1) excludes Colonial Territories which have become independent. Clause 1 (2) enables the Corporation to continue to exercise its powers in such territories for purposes approved before independence and gives the Secretary of State power to approve modifications and extensions of such purposes after independence, while Clause 1 (3) enables the Corporation to act as managing agents or to perform advisory functions in any Commonwealth country which is not a Colonial Territory.
In my submission, those extensions are net enough, having regard to the great variety of territorial status within the Empire and Commonwealth and to the great unfulfilled needs of those territories and the large sums of money which are necessary to fulfil those needs and, above all, to the dangers of infiltration by foreign capital and foreign Powers and, with possible dire consequences, foreign bases for military purposes within the Commonwealth.
For many generations, dedicated and able administrators in Britain and her Colonies have tried and, to some extent, succeeded in applying sound colonial doctrines, but they have been frustrated by a shortage of personnel—which is not relevant in this connection—and also by a shortage of finance. The Bill is ostensibly designed to supply them with finance to make good that neglect, but it does not do so sufficiently.
The Bill is an opportunity to rectify past defects, but it does not do so. It merely tinkers with the problem. The dedicated and the devoted men in the Empire and Commonwealth to whom I have referred have tried to develop Dependencies and to lead them towards

higher constitutional status, to make those nations ready and willing and fit for self-government. In many former Colonies, including Nigeria and Ghana, problems which should have been solved by the imperial Government have been neglected or left over for the new and independent Government. Such imperial failures are open to grave criticisms on many grounds.
Such grounds include the ethical wrong of leaving obligations unfulfilled in a nation which is on its way to independence and leaving those obligations for the new nation to discharge. Another ground is the unsound economics of leaving rich colonial potentialities undeveloped. A third is the international danger of leaving aid to foreign sources with or without strings. The last is the emotional alienation of realms which should be and could be sources of strength to the Empire and Commonwealth.
I need not set out the problems which have been neglected in the Commonwealth and Empire. They include education, slum clearance, town planning, building, road making, transport, industrialisation, social services, inter-colonial trade, industry, commerce and many others. I recently had the opportunity to be in West Africa and I saw the neglect there and compared that with what benefits could have accrued to the Empire and Commonwealth if that potentially rich area had been properly developed. It has not been properly developed and sufficient money has not been spent.
This little Bill is designed to provide money for purposes such as that, but it does not provide enough. My plea to the House is that these matters should no longer be neglected and that in Committee we should make the Bill fit for its purpose.
It is obvious that if Commonwealth nations will not, either jointly or separately, help each other and each new and potential entrant to the Commonwealth, then foreign nations will, with or without strings. In our expanding Commonwealth, West Africa presents many examples of these dangers. Already, various countries are infiltrating commercially and industrially into Nigeria, Ghana and elsewhere. Such countries are Japan, Holland, Italy, West


Germany, Spain, the United States of America and Russia. They are formidable rivals of Britain in these potentially rich areas. The Bill should be framed on more generous lines to meet the needs with which it is designed to deal. I welcome it.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I hope that it will not be thought too presumptuous if, from the back benches, I add my small tribute to those already paid to Walter Elliot. My excuse for doing so is that he was to many of us a great back bencher. Many of us came to the House after his Ministerial career was over and we think of him in his place below the Gangway. He was very kind—and I was glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said this—to newly joined and younger Members. He was full of heart, and kindness, and warmth, and wisdom and humour; we all admired him and felt great affection for him and we shall miss him very much.
I hope that he would have approved of this limited but useful Bill. I certainly do not intend to take up more than a few minutes in supporting it. Because of my great interest in the West Indies, I want fully to endorse what the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) said about the need for capital there. He mentioned St. Lucia, which is one of the smallest and poorest of the islands and which certainly needs all the help which the C.D.C. can give it.
I have two questions to put to my hon. Friend. The first concerns Clause 2 and the gap of £20 million between the £130 million to be advanced by the Colonial Office and the £150 million which the Corporation is authorised to borrow. My right hon. Friend said that the purpose of the Bill was to enable the Corporation to borrow from sources other than the Exchequer, but I should like to know exactly what is in the Government's mind in legislating for this gap of £20 million.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) inquired whether the Corporation would be entitled to pledge any of its existing assets in respect of the £20 million. I may be quite wrong about it, but I understand that all the assets of the Corporation are,

in effect, already pledged to the Government, and I do not understand upon what security the Corporation would be able to borrow in the market, unless there is to be some form of Treasury guarantee in respect of the £20 million. Perhaps my hon. Friend can be a little more specific about this proposal, and can say why it is included in the Bill.
The second question that I want to ask concerns the financing of pilot schemes. This point has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). In page 6 of the Corporation's Report for the year ended 31st December, 1956, the Corporation points out that
C.D.C. support for a full scale job may be conditional on a small scale pilot scheme being first mounted.
Incidentally, unlike other hon. Members, I rather like the somewhat cryptic style of the Report. I think that it makes easy and refreshing reading. As Lord Reith says in this connection:
Such procedures"—
that is, pilot schemes—
take time and cost money. But they result in sound decisions and minimise failures which hurt the territories as well as C.D.C.
I can well understand—and I fully agree with the Report in this matter—that before large cash advances are made it must often be desirable, indeed, necessary, to run these pilot schemes. How are they being financed at present? They cannot very well be financed out of the main project itself, because in some cases the pilot scheme will not be a success and, therefore, the main project will never, in fact, be undertaken; yet the pilot scheme itself is presumably not revenue-producing. I suppose, therefore, that pilot schemes are financed out of the profits of other projects, some of which are, no doubt, fairly quick revenue producers.
That is all very well, but as the Report says at the top of page 7, in another context:
The load cannot be borne by other jobs which probably cannot do much more than service their own capital…
I should have thought that that was fair comment. I do not know whether the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree for equity capital is appropriate and right, but it seems to me that a capital sum should be allocated for pilot schemes of this sort, on which


there is no obligation to pay an annual interest charge.
I do not know how much would be required—it might be £1 million, or something like that—but whatever may be the appropriate sum, I think that it should be made available as a special and specific grant for the purpose of financing these pilot schemes. Subject to these questions, I fully support the Bill, and hope that it will facilitate the excellent work which, under Lord Reith, the Corporation is now doing.
I should like to make a brief comment arising out of my right hon. Friend's remarks about the name of the Corporation. I very much hope that the name will not be changed. I was glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is not in favour of a change. I understand that in these days some people think that there is something a little difficult about the connotation of the word "colonial", but it does not bother me a hit. It would be quite inappropriate to change the name to "Commonwealth Development Corporation", because that would conflict with the purpose of Clause 1 of this Bill. The work of the Corporation is for the Colonies and in the Colonies, and not for the self-governing Commonwealth. It could be called the "Overseas Development Corporation", I suppose, but I do not see why it should be changed at all.
If we change the name we may give the impression that we are ashamed of our colonial record. I am very proud of it. I do not think that any other country has a better colonial record than we have. We have brought good government and progress, and sound, honest administration—very often out of chaos. We have improved the living standards of many millions of people; we have tried to educate them and improve their health, and build up their economies; we have led them towards self-government and we have granted them self-government as soon as they could cope with it. No Secretary of State has been more enlightened or progressive in this field than my right hon. Friend.
I think that it was Lord Elton who said, in his fine book "Imperial Commonwealth":
The British Empire has survived because it has produced not only so many men with a natural genius for ruling backward races, but, also, so many men who did not wish to see backward races being ruled.

There is a good deal of truth in that statement. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our colonial record, and nothing to be ashamed of in the name of this Corporation.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I have no intention of making a long speech, but I want to add my humble meed of praise—and almost of fondness—in memory of the late Walter Elliot. He was my leader as well as the leader of the Under-Secretary of State in the East African delegation some years ago, and we could not have had a finer man to lead us.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) wound up his speech with a wonderful peroration about the glories of the Empire. His quotation was a little superfluous at this late stage in the Empire's development. I would merely say, as I said last week, that due to the accident of history we had to have empires; but that instead of using all of these wonderful words about them, some of which are deserved, I admit, we should remember that if we want to make comparative analyses of different empires, at least with the Belgian Congo and in Portuguese Mozambique, there are people called the assimilados and the evolues who enjoy a higher level of social assimilation than exists in many of our dependent territories overseas.
I want to take up points made by two hon. Members—one on each side of the House. I want to join issue with the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). These Colonial Development Corporation debates have taken a queer shift since 1952. As always, the Conservative Party has used this Corporation as a political shuttlecock. In the bad old days they could not say a good word for it, but since 1952 there has been a complete shift. It is amazing to see how, now that they have got into power, they have continued something which they inwardly knew was for the good of the Empire and Commonwealth and, indeed, for ate good of themselves as a Government.
We have convinced them, not against their better judgment but perhaps against their worst judgment, and they accept this weapon for lifting up these dependent peoples overseas. If they are now


going to say, "This is what we did", or "This is what we could have done". I would remind them that the Corporation has incurred losses since the party opposite came into power. During this period, however, we have behaved ourselves over such matters as the Lobatsi abattoir in Bechuanaland, whereas we could have flogged that issue as they flogged the Gambia eggs scheme. Having come to power, they are learning the facts of life.
Hon. Members opposite accuse us of sentimental optimism about the possibilities of this instrument for advancing overseas people, but we say that they are too often guilty of unconstructive economy in these matters. While it is an excellent thing to step up by these tens of millions the power of expanding the Corporation's activities, we say that the matter is being treated negligently.
I wish to pick up what was said by the hon. Member for Wavertree, who began almost to wage an ideological economic war in Africa. It is quite correct that Africa is calling out for investment and we cannot satisfy the demand. While we may spend £20 million perhaps in opening up the Tchad Territory, or developing the railway in Nigeria, we could equally well spend £120 million in other parts, including £20 million on a South Tanganyika railway, and in the development of the coalfields in that territory. It would be possible to make a list of the jobs to be done and the money which could be spent, if we had it to spend.
The challenge is quite simple. Many Africans are leaving the bush for the city lights and we have to find jobs for them. Otherwise, we shall see what I fear we are going to witness in Kenya, where 20,000 have left the detention camps and are wondering about in Kiambu and Nairobi. We cannot find them jobs, there is no unemployment insurance, so they become mischievous. It is our task to find jobs for these people and also to increase the wealth of the Colony by financing the badly needed social services, including health, housing and education.
How far does this Bill go in that direction? Hon. Members have mentioned the handicaps from which the Corporation suffers. There is the question of whether it is allowed to operate only with

money it gets on loan. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have pleaded for equity capital, and I agree with everything which has been said. The Corporation suffers in that respect compared with private enterprise, which can, of course, have equity capital and operate in a much easier way than can this public Corporation. The point was made about the £8 million or more which we have lost in past activities. That is a millstone round its neck, and the Corporation has to "go canny" and to think carefully how it spends what money it has. In the view of many people this debt should be scaled down to give the Corporation a chance to get on with the job that it is called upon by this House to do.
The Bill is good so far as it goes, but I want to go a lot further in this matter. I wish to pick up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees, who shocked me by suggesting that we combine the C.D.C. with colonial development and welfare. I have heard hon. Members opposite say that on other occasions, particularly the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), but I do not agree. In fact, the colonial development and welfare fund is completely unfitted for the work which the C.D.C. has to do.
I do not suppose that in his many hours of silent study the Minister has ever bothered to read the Unilever magazine Progress. In the autumn, 1957, issue there is a thoughtful article by Sir Sydney Caine, who discusses the balance sheet of development and welfare so far. In a thoughtful analysis he questions whether much of the work which has been done by C.D. and W. could not have been done by the Governments on the spot with their own money in their own territories. If that may be said about C.D. and W., what about the C.D.C.?
For example, Sir Sydney Caine says, about C.D. and W.,
…that the scale needs to be largely increased and the scope of aid widened to include non-colonial territories.
He says:
To some extent the system has come to be a rather complex method of general supplementation of colonial revenues.
He also says that the difficulty, when we examine these projects, is
in detecting whether any of them are very constructive in the way of path breaking development.


In my view, Sir Sydney Caine is one of the people best qualified to speak about these matters, and if he is able to say that about development and welfare how much less is one entitled to speak about the C.D.C. in the same way? Surely the function of the C.D.C. is to tackle these things "of path breaking development." Development and welfare cannot attempt them, nor would the financiers in the City, because it is a dangerous matter and a marginal risk. It will not yield the 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. profit which the capitalist wishes to secure. This provides a field of operations for the C.D.C. which must be kept quite separate from the normal humdrum services of a Colony.
However, one can go beyond this, if one is really speaking about giving aid to dependent territories. A few weeks ago, at the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council decided—or rather it will decide after the resolution has been agreed—to have an economic commission for Africa on the lines of the E.C.E. and the E.C.A.F.E. in South-East Asia, and the E.C.L.A. in South America. It is perhaps a little late in the day, but we are also to widen our work in Africa to supplement the C.C.T.T.A. technical commissions south of the Sahara by what will develop from the F.A.M.A. Conference in Accra next month.
But all this mutual assistance should have been provided years ago. What we really need is a Colombo Plan for Africa. A concerted attack should be made by the colonial Powers in Africa; British, Belgian, French, including the Portuguese, who may come in despite the fact that they are not in the so-called democratic comity of Western Europe.
As was said by the hon. Member for Wavertree, America also must assist. I cannot think of any place other than the North African continent where we may obtain the needed massive injections of capital. We are worrying about whether we can get a million pounds or so for a Colony like Kenya. What about the Volta Dam project, which seems to have gone temporarily into oblivion? We are worried about small doses of capital for these various schemes; but I would take the matter beyond that, and beyond the discussions of technicians or civil servants, and say to the Minister that in the same way as we have a Council of Europe we

should have a Council of Africa. We should call in the politicians of the different Governments to discuss these matters fully in an Assembly. It is all very well for the technicians and those skilled in fighting malaria and combating the tsetse to meet in their committees, but it needs a bigger, more important and concerted attack on this question of—I was about to say assimilating the people of the bush into a higher and advanced way of living along with the Western peoples.
While we welcome this Bill, and say that it is a fine thing to spend a few more millions, we maintain that it is only biting at the cherry. What we need is not only more bites at the cherry, but more cherries to be bitten. We give a qualified welcome to this Bill, but we hope that progress will be made in tackling the bigger question of doing something for these dependent peoples for whom so much needs to be done.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Roland Robinson: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I would pay my own warm personal tribute to the memory of the late Walter Elliot. He had been with us for so long and played such a large part in our deliberations and in our Parliamentary life that he had in a way become part of each and every one of us. I am sure that in the months to come we shall all feel a sense of great personal loss as we realise more and more that he is not with us.
Like others, I welcome the Bill, in the belief that it meets immediate requirements, but in common with other hon. Members I hope that it is only part of a much wider and much more comprehensive policy for the development of our British Commonwealth. I am one of those who feel that we have a very real responsibility to the emerging territories. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that our responsibility to them as Colonial Territories came to an end when they achieved their independence. I presume he meant the responsibility of the Colonial Office. I feel we should go beyond that, because as a nation we must have a very real sense of responsibility towards the new territories which are now becoming full members of the British Commonwealth.
It is therefore important that we should find some vehicle for the great task of helping those countries with their problem of development. It is possible that the Colonial Development Corporation is such a vehicle. With that idea in mind, it would be wise at this early stage for us to change the name from Colonial Development Corporation to Commonwealth Development Corporation or British Overseas Development Corporation. It is not a new idea. The Bill is called the Overseas Resources Development Bill and not the Colonial Development Bill.
Next week we shall be discussing a Bill to change the title of the Imperial Institute by adding the word "Commonwealth". It is a sign of the changing times. We can all be proud of the work that we have done in colonial development and I see no stigma in the use of the words "colony" and "colonial". They are a part of our history which is outstanding and which will always bring credit to our country. On the other hand, the terms have come into a certain amount of disrepute in some parts of the Commonwealth and of the Colonial Territories, so let the terms go. The problems are so great that we should not lose time arguing about names and words. Achievements matter, and not names.
I am interested in Clause 1 (3) of the Bill under which the Colonial Development Corporation will have power to become managing agents in the new self-governing territories. This is one of the most unrealistic Clauses ever written into a Bill. I cannot see the new self-governing territories asking the Colonial Development Corporation, "Please manage some of our business affairs for us". Certainly this will not happen while the word "colonial" is used, but there is one other consideration. In normal business practice it is not enough to ask somebody to manage our business. There is usually the further requirement that the manager should have some financial stake in the business. We should accept in the development of the British Commonwealth the every-day business principle that management and money go hand in hand. We should not expect to manage these projects in self-governing territories unless we make a financial contribution to them as well.
I join with hon. Members who have drawn attention to the problems of the capital structure of the Colonial Development Corporation. Of course it has lost money, and of course at some time or another we must face the fact that we shall have to write off these losses. Why not do it now in the Bill, and get it off our chests, so that the Corporation can start on its great task with a clean sheet? If it has to set aside sums of money out of its profits to pay off losses on unsuccessful development efforts undertaken in the past it will never do a good job.
There is a suggestion that we create a development fund, which the Corporation can use without being asked to make a profit on it. It could cover development work. Whether we like it or not, a great part of the work of the C.D.C. is purely development. One of the outstanding examples was the discovery of the Tanganyika coal field. A large sum of money was spent, and evidence was produced of the existence of millions of tons of workable coal. It proved to be purely development work, because there was no immediate possibility of getting the coal out until large sums of money had been spent on building a railway. We ought to give credit to a Corporation for doing a good job in revealing resources which can be developed at some future time only when further money is put up to develop communications.
At this stage I shall not go into further details. I have recently returned from a visit to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in New Delhi, where it was my very great privilege to play a part in a two-day discussion of Commonwealth development. I should be remiss if I did not say that no subject discussed during the conference, which lasted nearly ten days, attracted such deep-seated interest among representatives from all parts of the British Commonwealth as did this question of Commonwealth development. I came away from the conference with a firm conviction that it really is time for this country to give a lead, not with small Parliamentary Bills, but in a broad, comprehensive policy to capture the imagination not only of this House and this country but of all members of the Commonwealth.
The time is ripe. We should broaden our conceptions. We should invite the


great self-governing territories to share our responsibility for developing the Commonwealth. Many of the territories are doing it now under the auspices of the Colombo Plan. We should go farther. It should not be done by the United Kingdom alone. The Commonwealth should be invited to come in, and when I say "Commonwealth" I mean all. Upon achieving independence the emerging territories should be invited to join in, too. We know that they cannot afford much money, but we should ask them to give a token contribution so that they may feel that, as self-governing territories, they are sharing the great task with us. Only in that way can we achieve the true concept of Commonwealth.
This is a small Bill, but we welcome it. We should be failing in our duty, however, if we did not impress upon the Government that Commonwealth development is a very great challenge. We have a very great chance of increasing the wealth of the Commonwealth, and raising the standard of living of millions of its people. We should tackle it with vigour and imagination. I hope that within the next month or two we shall have an example from the Government of real leadership which will inspire the whole Commonwealth.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I want to intervene only for a few moments in this debate. First, I should like to endorse almost everything the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) has said. I think that the Colonial Development Corporation does a job that ought to be done, one we shall always regard with pride, and that the Government ought not to hamper its work in any way.
Some hon. Members have said they are very proud of what has been done already in the Colonial Empire. Yes, we are very proud of much that has been done, but we are also ashamed of some of the things that have happened. It is useless for us in this day and generation to blind ourselves to facts of that kind. The Colonial Development Corporation has done much to wipe out the stains of the past. I am not blaming those of the past; they were growing up in the world of that time. We have had the advantage of their experience.
We must not regard this matter in a niggardly way. I agree with the hon. Member who suggested that we should wipe out the debt. On Thursday, we shall be asked to wipe out a debt on our agricultural account of between £60 million and £70 million. Let us be big in this matter. The amount outstanding for this work is comparatively small, but the work itself is imaginative and big. I plead that we should not cut off territories which have achieved Dominion status immediately they reach it. We can recall how hard up this country was in 1945 when, suddenly, we were told by President Truman that Lend-Lease was at an end. Let us help these territories. After all, they have contributed in wealth to the development of Britain. I am sure that the Corporation is doing a good job, and we can trust it to go on doing that job provided we give it the money to do so.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I think it essential that we should be clear about one or two things. I, also, welcome the Bill, but I think that a measure of caution is needed.
If I remember aright, when the Colonial Development Corporation was established it was specifically for the purpose of assisting in forms of development which otherwise would not take place; in other words, undertaking them would not prove profitable, but assistance was given then so that they should be successful. Very substantial sums of money were sunk in enterprises of one description and another and in this House I have heard very considerable criticism of the lack of business acumen on the part of the Corporation in some enterprises which it undertook.
Consequently, we revised the rules of the Corporation and restricted its activities. Therefore, while I fully approve of the purpose of which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) was speaking, of developing the Commonwealth and Colonies, I am not enamoured of the idea that we should sink money in everything that is unprofitable and leave the profitable subjects to private enterprise. For that reason, in matters of this nature I do not altogether see the wisdom of exploring in Tanganyika or other places for resources which


afterwards will prove exceedingly prosperous to people who have sufficient private capital to put into them.
If my memory serves aright, I saw a vast cement works in Northern Rhodesia which would not have been developed but for assistance granted by the Corporation. The Corporation was working harmoniously with private enterprise and making a success of that project. If we are to sink capital and an enterprise is to be profitable, a part of those profits should flow back to the funds of the Corporation to assist other enterprises, which may be necessary but not so profitable.
I agree with sentiments which have been expressed by various colleagues. Although I often disagree with colleagues on this matter, I recognise that throughout the whole of the Colonies our prime task is to develop the economic resources, because I am confident that we shall not get rid of ignorance, poverty and disease until throughout the Colonies we can produce sufficient wealth to maintain services which will accomplish those purposes.
So, while I welcome these things, I hope that we shall keep a sense of proportion and recognise when dealing in public money that we should do so in such a way that where, in consequence, forms of development prove profitable we may share in them in order to assist in the development of other areas and not allow the most remunerative to remain in the hands of private enterprise whilst taking on responsibility for financing those which are not profitable.
From that point of view, it would be hard to win the confidence of outsiders who want to invest their money. If we want to create the impression throughout the Colonies that we are not, once again, merely concerned with exploitation of the people, but with their general development and with increasing their prosperity, only on the lines I have indicated shall we win their co-operation.

6.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): My right hon. Friend has asked me to present his apologies to the House for having to absent himself from the final stages of this debate. I think the House is aware of the invariable courtesy

with which he treats it. Hon. Members will, therefore, be assured that it is only a most pressing engagement which prevents him from being here at this time.
I hope that I may be allowed to associate myself with the many tributes which have been paid to the late Walter Elliot. If I do so only formally, that is not because of any lack of affection I feel for him and for his memory, but because all that should be said has already been said by others far better than I should be able to say it.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) opened this debate on behalf of the Opposition by making a claim that the Colonial Development Corporation had operated during the last year of its accounts at a reasonably substantial profit. That statement was analysed later by my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) and for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney). I think they showed that the claims made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East were exaggerated, to say the least. I think that on the whole, however great may be the differences of view between the two sides of the House—differences about the use of Government instruments and State corporations for Colonial and Commonwealth development—it does no service to the C.D.C. to claim more for its success than is justified and it does not detract in any way from the excellent work which Lord Reith and his colleagues have done during these last years by pointing out that up to the present, apart from the successes which stand to its credit, there have also been certain failures.
To the best of my ability I have tried to understand the Labour Party's view of colonial economic aid. I was hoping that the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East today would elucidate for me some of the points contained in the document which was issued. I should have said that the difference of approach to this problem between the two sides of the House is that we on our side believe that in the independent Commonwealth, and to a large extent in the dependent territories, the most effective way of providing for the varied development which is required is through the instrument of private investment and private enterprise.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that all we can find is £50 million for colonial investment. The


inference which he apparently wished the House to draw from that was that the Government were being unduly niggardly in extending these additional resources to the C.D.C. because, as I understood him, that was the main source for the development of Colonial Territories. Of course, that is not true. As the House knows, in the development of dependent territories there is the vitally important work done through the Colonial Development and Welfare moneys. There are the grants in aid which have been made from time to time, as needed, to Colonies all over the world. There are the loans available which have been raised for colonial development on the London money market, and there are large amounts of private investment which have been made in Colonial Territories during the last few years.
We recognise that it is difficult—and this is one of the reasons why we on this side have accepted such instruments as the C.D.C.—to ensure that money is channelled to those objectives which would not normally of themselves attract investment. We believe that the main purpose of the C.D.C. is to channel a certain portion of public investment into Colonial Territories, and the need for that investment, as I think is accepted on both sides, continues to be very great.
What I find difficult to understand in the point of view put forward by the Opposition is that they should be anxious to divert the resources of the C.D.C. from the Colonies to the Commonwealth—a proposition which in certain cases is not particularly attractive to ordinary investment; into areas in, for instance, Australia and South Africa, which are normally very attractive to investment. The object of restricting the C.D.C. investment is to ensure that the money which is made available is retained in its entirety for those territories for which we have a special responsibility and which in many cases would not normally attract investment from other sources.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman able to quote any hon. Member who said in this debate or in any other debate that we should take money normally given to dependent Colonial Territories and invest it in Australia or South Africa? Can he quote any document which says that? It is completely new to this side.

Mr. Alport: I recognise that hon. Gentlemen opposite seldom follow

through the logical consequences of the policies they put forward. What I have suggested is the logical consequence of the policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward in wishing to extend the operations of the C.D.C. to the independent Commonwealth. In our view, as far as the independent Commonwealth is concerned, whether it be a great country like India or Australia, the best instrument for investment remains private investment.
At the end of 1955, United Kingdom private investment in India amounted to nearly £300 million compared with the United States investment of just over £30 million. In Australia, the total United Kingdom investment between 1947 and 1956 was £A390 million. In other words, 64½ per cent. of the private investment in Australia during those ten years came from the United Kingdom. That compares with just over 27 per cent. from the United States and Canada. In those circumstances nobody can say that private investment as an instrument for the development of the independent Commonwealth has not been successful, and that it has not played its part in making the resources of these great territories beneficial not only to the people of those Commonwealth countries but also to the world. It is for that reason that we believe that private investment should still remain a main instrument for meeting the needs of the underdeveloped territories from such resources as can be made available from the United Kingdom.
Our main responsibility, which, I think, is agreed by at least some hon. Gentlemen opposite, is to continue to ensure that the strength of sterling is maintained and that our sterling balance liabilities are properly and punctually fulfilled. It is clear, in spite of what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said, that there will always be in the present position of economic stringency in which we find ourselves substantial limitations on the resources available for investment in the Commonwealth and overseas. At the same time it is essential that we should do the best we can, and I think that the substantial addition which has been made by this Bill to the amount of resources available to the C.D.C. is a token of the intention of the Government that the United Kingdom will continue to play a full part in bringing about the


development of the resources of the Commonwealth.
Many of the questions put to me were directed to certain matters which, as the Secretary of State said, are not included in the Bill—for instance the capital reconstruction of the Colonial Development Corporation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked me questions about this aspect of the future of the C.D.C. First, he said, "Tell us about the borrowing powers. Will the C.D.C. be able to pledge its assets?" The answer to that has already been given by one of my hon. Friends. The truth is that the assets of the C.D.C. are already pledged to the Treasury in respect of the moneys which have been advanced by the Treasury to the C.D.C. Therefore, if they were to use those assets as security for any loans raised it would simply amount to the Treasury's undertaking responsibility for guaranteeing those loans.
The hon. Member asked what the rôle of the Treasury would be. Could it guarantee the money raised? Under the original Act the Treasury has power to guarantee money raised by the C.D.C., and that would be done where appropriate, subject to any conditions which the Treasury might feel it right to apply to the proposition which was put to it. As I understand it, the method whereby the money would be secured would primarily be by means of Treasury guarantee. Other means would be open to the C.D.C., but Treasury approval would be required in all cases.

Mr. Callaghan: Perhaps we should follow this up in Committee, when perhaps the Under-Secretary will give a fuller answer, but what are the conditions in which a Treasury guarantee will not be forthcoming? May we take it that in the generality of cases there will be a Treasury guarantee for the loan?

Mr. Alport: Of course not. That is a matter for the Treasury, and I cannot give any indication at present. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that at present I can give no indication of the conditions which the Treasury would exact on those occasions. That is all I can say in answer to his question, and it is a very full answer. In the case of the C.D.C. raising money under the additional

£20 million which it is entitled to raise in accordance with the Bill, where the conditions were acceptable to the Treasury the money would be open for a guarantee by the Treasury.

Mr. Callaghan: It is no use the hon. Member trying to ride off like that. What are the conditions and in what circumstances will the Treasury give its guarantee? What will prevent it from giving a guarantee? It is no use the hon. Member saying that he cannot answer this matter for the Treasury. He is speaking for the Government, and before the House gives the Bill a Second Reading it is entitled to know what are the conditions which will be in the Treasury's mind before it gives its guarantee.

Mr. Alport: Certainly not. The House would not expect and the hon. Member has no right to expect me to be able to give that information at this stage.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Alport: I have given way frequently and I cannot give way to the hon. Member again.

Mr. Callaghan: But this is absurd.

Mr. Alport: It is not absurd in any way. As I have said, it is perfectly clear that the conditions will depend upon the proposition put to the Treasury by the C.D.C., and it is therefore impossible for me at present to outline the sort of conditions and the sort of propositions which the C.D.C. may put to the Treasury when these propositions mature.
Let me turn to another question raised by the hon. Member—whether any cushion of equity capital would be given to the C.D.C. in recognition of the fact that it undertakes certain risk-bearing activity. The hon. Member said he did not agree with this, but he asked me to give an answer on the subject because, as I understood it, the matter had been put to him by the C.D.C., as stated in the Labour Party's booklet, "Labour's Colonial Policy." I am doing my best to assist him and to answer the questions which he has put to me. I always try to do so.
I will put the question in my own words, if he will forgive me. He asked whether there would be any cushion of an equity element in the C.D.C. capital in recognition of the fact that the C.D.C.


has to undertake certain risk investment. The C.D.C. claims that it is at a disadvantage in comparison with private enterprise, which is able to obtain equity capital in order to meet just those problems which are created by the element of risk in any enterprise.
On this matter, and on the question about obtaining, at the initial stage, one rate of interest for capital required for an enterprise, rather than its being subject to varying rates of interest during the development of the enterprise, all I can say is that those two subjects and all those matters which are connected with the reconstruction of the C.D.C.'s capital structure which are not dealt with in the Bill are known to my right hon. Friend and are a matter for investigation and consideration at present. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is not in a position to give any answers at the moment. Had he been in such a position, no doubt those matters would have been dealt with in this legislation. These are very complicated and difficult matters of policy, but in due course my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make decisions on these various subjects. He is as well aware as any other hon. Member of the difficulties which the Board of the C.D.C. has been facing and is as sympathetic about those difficulties as any other hon. Member.
I should like to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East about the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation. He appeared to indicate that the resources of that body were very small and limited. The fact is that the capital of the C.D.F.C. is £15 million, and it has power to borrow up to twice that figure. In other words, the resources which could be available to the C.D.F.C. are about £45 million. Moreover, £14½ million is already committed. It is wrong to suppose that this body has been a disappointment in its operations to those who started it—it is a private enterprise body—or that it has failed to make a substantial contribution to Commonwealth development generally since its formation.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the hon. Member telling the House and in particular his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) that a sum even as large as £14 million invested in the

whole of the Commonwealth begins to match the needs? It is a ridiculous, infinitesimal and stupid little sum.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member is extraordinary in his approach to this matter. I have already given him figures of hundreds of millions of pounds invested in Australia and India, and the same comment applies to other Commonwealth countries. The amount which is represented by the C.D.F.C. contribution may appear to be small in comparison with those major figures, but it is only one facet of the many means of bringing the financial resources of this country to meet the needs of the developing Commonwealth. It is wrong to take it out of its context and to pretend, as the hon. Member did with his reference to the £50 million in the Bill, that it is the only thing which is being done.
It is impossible for me, and the House would neither expect nor permit it, to elaborate the various other means whereby investment has been made, for example the 400 firms in the United Kingdom which are investing in Australia. That is a token of what is being done, and the hon. Member and his colleagues are living under a complete misconception if they believe that the only thing which has been done in the last ten years for the development of the Commonwealth results from the Overseas Resources Development Acts. That is only a very small proportion of the great effort which has been made by the United Kingdom over the last ten years.

Mr. Callaghan: I assure the hon. Member that I follow that, but I ask him to try to understand the argument. The whole point is that whether it is £14 million or £4 million, it is supposed to represent the investment which will take the place of the C.D.C. in the emerging territories. This is the system on which, the Government tell us, they rely. The right hon. Gentleman in an intervention said he relied on this to take the place of the C.D.C. That is the argument I am putting, and I am beginning to think that I can supply the hon. Member with the words but I cannot supply him with the understanding.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Gentleman again is wrong. My noble Friend, in another


place, was drawing attention to the potentialities of investment of the type represented by the C.D.F.C., in its turn representing the efforts of private investment in development in the independent Commonwealth.
The contribution which the C.D.F.C. has made in the independent Commonwealth is an important one, not merely in terms of the money which it has been able to contribute from its own resources but also in its function as a guide to others interested in the development of the Commonwealth as to the type of investment which is valuable not only to this country but to the Commonwealth countries concerned. The hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the importance of the rôle which the C.D.F.C. has played during these last years.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether the Government did not think that there was a strong case for what he called the cross-fertilisation of the Commonwealth, by which I took him to mean to ask, were we in favour of using the financial resources of all parts of the Commonwealth in the general task of developing the Commonwealth as a whole? I assure him that there is nothing that the Government would not support—this is made clear in the White Paper—in trying to associate in every way we can other Commonwealth countries with our own.
Quite recently, I had the opportunity of seeing one example of the contribution which Canada is making in Pakistan, in the great hydroelectric dam which is being erected on the Kabul river. I assure the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that not only are we in favour of it but, both through the Colombo Plan and other means, a great deal of progress in this form of co-operation—perhaps inadequately publicised—has taken place and is taking place at the present time.

Mr. Grimond: Since the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to reply to me, will he say something about the matter, mentioned by both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and me, of funds from outside, for instance, from the United States? I am not quite sure how far the Commonwealth Development Corporation can attempt to tap those resources.

Mr. Alport: I was asked that question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and by other hon. Members. I had intended to answer it later, but I will do so now. The additional £20 million which the Bill will, subject to Treasury agreement, enable the C.D.C. to raise, may be raised from a number of different sources. It might be raised, I suppose, on the London money market. It might be done through the International Bank. It might be raised—I hope it will be—in Commonwealth countries; and we hope that it may be raised from other sources available to the Corporation.
The hon. Gentleman can be assured that this is a means, or, we hope, it may turn out to be a means, of associating other forms of investment with the effort of the C.D.C. It is not possible for me to give an exact estimate of what those sources may be, but hon. Members can be assured that, within the limitations I explained earlier, the C.D.C. will be encouraged to seek investment from other parts of the Commonwealth and, indeed, on occasion, no doubt, from outside.
To the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) I can answer for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in expressing great sympathy with the points the hon. Gentleman made about the West Indies As was shown in a recent debate on three groups of islands in the West Indies, there is great sympathy and understanding for the problems of that part of the British Commonwealth. I would merely add that those matters will, no doubt, be noted by my right hon. Friend. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution and I am grateful—as, I am sure, are his friends in the West Indies—for the fact that he has acted as their spokesman in this matter. The hon. Gentleman would not, however, be right to give the impression that the C.D.C. will in future be given, under any Government, unlimited resources for use in an unlimited way.
The principle that the C.D.C. must break even over the years was a principle laid down by hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Government, and it is a principle which would be continued, no doubt, by them if they were to come into office again. The truth of the matter is that we do the C.D.C. harm if we give the impression, as the hon. Member


for Stockton-on-Tees seemed to tend to do, that it can do more than it is really able to do.
The debate has, quite properly, probed the background of the policies against which the Bill has been framed. We accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that greater progress should be made. We accept that there is a sense of urgency and enthusiasm about the whole problem of Commonwealth development and an anxiety to ensure that the United Kingdom shall continue to play its full part.
At a time when the financial resources of this country are limited, it is, as I said earlier, a token of the Government's intention that this should be done that we are bringing the Bill for Second Reading today. We are adding 50 per cent. to the total capital to be available to the C.D.C., and that, in itself, is an indication of the importance which we attach to the work which can be done by the C.D.C. and to the whole matter of Commonwealth development.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for the various points they have made, and I am grateful to the House for the welcome it has given to the Bill. There may be matters requiring to be dealt with in Committee, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has informed us that he intends to move certain Amendments. We can consider those matters when the Committee stage is reached. In the meantime, the House will, I hope, give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the sums which may be borrowed by the Colonial Development Corporation or advanced to them by the Secretary of State, it is expedient,—

(a) to authorise the following consequences of raising from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit imposed by section eleven of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, on the borrowings (other than temporary borrowings) of the Corporation, namely—

any extension of the amounts which under the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, may be or are to be guaranteed by the Treasury, issued out of the Consolidated Fund, borrowed by the Treasury or paid into the Exchequer; and

(b) to authorise the following consequences of raising from one hundred to one hundred and thirty million pounds the limit imposed by section twelve of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, on advances to the Corporation by the Secretary of State, namely—

any extension of the amounts which under the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, may be or are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, borrowed by the Treasury, paid into the Exchequer or remitted to the Corporation by the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Alport.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this Measure is to make certain changes in the British Nationality Act, 1948, which have become necessary as a result of the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the granting of independence to Ghana. We are also taking advantage of this opportunity to overcome various hardships which have arisen in the operation of the 1948 Act, which were not then foreseen.
Before attempting to describe the background to the Bill and the Bill itself, perhaps I may make the comment that there are few things that are more important in the lives of human beings than the facts and the law relating to their nationality, but, alas, in this matter both the facts and the law are inevitably complex. This is something that inevitably affects people's status and, therefore, I would respectfully suggest that it is more than ever necessary to ensure that our legislation is fair and unambiguous; and that is more especially so when we are legislating for people who have an association with us, or who are proud to be called British.
As the House will remember, the 1948 Act was based on a new conception of nationality within the Commonwealth. Before 1948, all people in the United Kingdom, throughout the Colonies, and throughout the countries of the Commonwealth were British subjects with only one form of nationality—they were all British subjects. Following the Commonwealth Citizenship Conference in 1947, it was agreed between the then countries of the Commonwealth that although there should continue to be a common citizenship embracing all people who had formerly had British nationality, there should also be separate citizenships for each of the countries of the Commonwealth; and that separate citizenships should be a necessary way of entering into the common citizenship. Lastly, it was agreed that

the United Kingdom and the Colonies should together form one type of separate citizenship.
The other forms of separate citizenship were set out in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act, which referred to citizenship of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia—which will develop in our discussion today—and Ceylon. Section 1 of the 1948 Act also said that a person enjoying the common status to which I have referred, which, by the way, we in this country still call British nationality—hence the title of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and the British Nationality Bill which we are now discussing—could be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen, and that the two expressions should have the same meaning.
Some countries have preferred to use the one and others have preferred to use the other expression. Some countries permit the use of either. I should emphasise that this Bill does not in any way disturb the fundamental conception which was written into Section 1 of the 1948 Act. What it does is to bring the application of that Act up to date in the light of the changes in the Federation and in Ghana.
Turning to the Bill, Clause 1 deals with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and has been made necessary by the Citizenship Act which was passed last year by the Federal Parliament. Although it was passed some months ago, that Act will not come into operation until a date which has yet to be appointed by the Governor-General, and which will coincide with the date of the coming into operation of this Bill. It was felt by both Governments that that would avoid confusion.
In this matter, we have to consider separately the position of the people in Southern Rhodesia—who were mentioned in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act as people having separate citizenship—and the people in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which were protected territories, and recognised as such under that Act, and previously. At present, the people of Southern Rhodesia, therefore, enjoy Southern Rhodesian citizenship as a result of their Citizenship Act which was passed soon after our 1948 Act, and, in the United Kingdom, as a result of the


1948 Act, they are recognised as British subjects. But the people in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are, as I said, British protected persons; that is to say, they are not British subjects but they receive Her Majesty's protection in foreign countries and they are free to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom without restriction.
When the Citizenship Act of the Federation comes into force, separate citizenship of Southern Rhodesia will be abolished, and citizens of Southern Rhodesia will become known as citizens of the Federation. But British protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be entitled to register as Federal citizens if they so wish, and if they do not wish to be so registered, they will remain British protected persons merely by taking no action at all. That is to say, they will, so to speak, have to contract in to Federal citizenship. They are, therefore, in quite a separate position from the people of Southern Rhodesia, who will pass straight from Southern Rhodesian citizenship to Federal citizenship as a result of the Citizenship Act that I have mentioned.
If the Citizenship Act were to be brought into force without nay change tin our law here, the citizens of the Federation would not be British subjects in United Kingdom law, because the 1948 Act confers such status, not on citizens of the Federation as such, but only on some of them as citizens of Southern Rhodesia. Hence in Clause 1 (1, a), we substitute the Federation for Southern Rhodesia in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act. That is the main purpose, therefore, of Clause 1, but we find that it is also necessary to make some consequential provisions relating to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
When the Federation is inserted, as it will be, in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act as a country with separate citizenship, it will become necessary to decide whether the two Protectorates—the other parts of the Federation—are, for nationality purposes, to be treated as Protectorates or as parts of a country with separate citizenship. That is an unfortunate and unavoidable complication with which we have to deal, and the line that we have taken is to provide that references in the 1948 Act to a Protectorate shall not include Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Nevertheless, I am advised that, in

law, the net result will be that these two territories will retain their general status as Protectorates, in spite of being within the Federation, and that their inhabitants will not be deprived against their will of their cherished status as British protected persons.
So much for the position inside the Federation. I have done my best to explain it, but if this or anything else that I have to say is not clear, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will do his best to make up for my own shortcomings.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question? Is there anything to stop the Government of the Federation, between now and 1960, purporting by its domestic legislation to do away with this status of protected persons as far as the law of the Federation is concerned, even though that would have no effect as far as United Kingdom law is concerned?

Mr. Renton: That is a hypothetical question, of which I would prefer to have notice. I think it is probably a rather difficult question to answer, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will certainly get an answer in due course, though I am not in a position to give him one at this moment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am much obliged, I was not asking the question in order to entrap the hon. and learned Gentleman on a very technical part of the law.

Mr. Renton: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend will be in a position to answer on that point tonight, but I will most certainly see that inquiries are made and that the hon. and learned Gentleman shall have an answer, if necessary after this debate.
May we now pass to Clause 2, which deals with the sequel to the independence of Ghana. By the Ghana Independence Act, which we passed last year, Ghana has already been listed among those Commonwealth countries with the separate citizenship mentioned in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act, which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has just taken his place on the Front Bench opposite, introduced into the House.

Mr. Ede: I had the misfortune of having to introduce a Bill and then having to move Amendments to every Clause in it to undo the evil work which had been done in another place by the hon. and learned Gentleman's friends.

Mr. Renton: I do not think there is any need for the right hon. Gentleman, in response to what was meant to be a friendly welcome from me, to rake up past history, which he seems to relish.
At any rate, the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman introduced in 1948 has already been amended by us by the Ghana Independence Act, 1957, so that as soon as the Ghana Parliament enacted its own citizenship law, the result was that the people of Ghana would be recognised in the United Kingdom as British subjects and recognised in Ghana as citizens of Ghana. In fact, since that step was taken and the Ghana citizenship law was passed, the people of Ghana have had a dual status. They are citizens of Ghana and they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that is their present position.
The logical step for us to take, and one which is in keeping with the 1948 conception of separate citizenship, is that the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies should be withdrawn from those people in Ghana whose common citizenship within the Commonwealth is derived solely from their connection with Ghana, but leaving it for the others. That is what this Clause of the Bill will achieve.
Broadly speaking, it takes away citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from all people born in Ghana or whose fathers or paternal grandfathers were born there, provided that they have no connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies either by birth, naturalisation, registration or descent, or, in the case of a woman, no connection by marriage People who have such a connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies will retain their dual citizenship in Ghana and for as long as they remain there.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question? Another country has obtained independence during the past year—Malaya. How does this Bill affect the citizens of Malaya?

Mr. Renton: The Bill does not affect the citizens of Malaya at all, and my hon. Friend will be glad to deal with that point when he replies. There are still some comments which I ought to make, if the House will bear with me, on this question of the changes in Ghana. There are four appropriate comments which one should make for the sake of clarity.
The first is that what we are proposing to do applies only to those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are also citizens of Ghana, and there no one will be deprived of his wider status of British nationality. Secondly, people who will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies will be people who belong to Ghana only, having no substantial connection with any territory for which Her Majesty is responsible. The exceptions to the general rule in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 2 provide for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by anyone likely to have reasonable grounds for retaining it because of some connection.
My third comment is that I should make clear that the Clause does not apply to British protected persons who come from those parts of Ghana which were formerly known as the Northern Territories and the Togoland Trust Territory. Their position is covered by the Ghana Independence Act, in which it was provided that they should continue to enjoy the status of British protected citizens until becoming citizens of Ghana.
My fourth and last comment in regard to the Ghana position is that citizens of Ghana who lose their citizenship in the United Kingdom and Colonies will continue under our law to be, in the terms of the 1948 Act, British subjects or Commonwealth citizens, whichever they prefer to call themselves, and if they wish they can call themselves either or both. As such, they will be free to enter the United Kingdom, and while here to enjoy all our rights and privileges and accept our obligations as British subjects.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill have quite different purposes, not quite so important, perhaps, but, nevertheless, well worthy of the attention of the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me on a subject which is worrying me here?


What difference would it make to anybody if we did not do these things? The Ghana citizen, who has now a dual citizenship, ceases to be a citizen of Ghana and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and becomes a citizen of Ghana and a British subject. What difference does it make to him which he is?

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that if we do nothing about this at all the vast mass of the people of Ghana will have the Commonwealth status which I mentioned covered by the term "British subject or Commonwealth citizen". Secondly, they will be citizens of Ghana, and, thirdly, they will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Naturally, the proposals in the Clause have been very carefully considered. There have been consultations with the Government of Ghana and it is thought that this is the best way of resolving the position. In all matters of status, we do not want to allow complications to continue indefinitely merely through our own inertia. It clarifies the position and represents the feelings of a vast number of people in Ghana today if they have their separate Ghana citizenship and, as in the case of the people of Canada and Australia, regard their own citizenship as their entry into the status of Commonwealth citizenship.

Mr. Paget: The point on which I want clarification and which, I think, we ought to have explained to us before we pass the Bill is whether we are taking any right away from anybody to do anything.

Mr. Renton: I do not think that we are taking any right away, but quite candidly that is a very difficult question for me to answer, not only because I do not know the answer, but because it would involve consideration of a large number of matters which are outside the scope of the Bill. As the hon. and learned Member has raised the question, I shall be very glad to look into it. I am not in a position to answer it now.

Mr. Paget: Surely, if we gave the Bill a Second Reading we should be doing very wrong and acting irresponsibly if we did not know before doing so whether or not we were taking rights away from people or whether or not we were giving people privileges?

Mr. Renton: I do not think the hon. and learned Member had the doubtful advantage of being here during the first few minutes of my speech, when I was trying to explain that the Bill is an attempt to bring up to date the agreed conclusions of the Commonwealth Citizenship Conference which was held in 1947. Those conclusions were embodied as far as we were concerned in the British Nationality Act, 1948, which had its counterpart in each of the countries of the Commonwealth. Ghana itself has now enacted its own citizenship law, and what it has done is consistent with the principle which had been agreed earlier.
That principle can be stated also in this way—that there should be a separate citizenship for people in each of the countries of the Commonwealth, which would be most near to that part of the Commonwealth with which they were connected. The obvious thing for the people of Ghana is that they should have as their separate citizenship the citizenship of Ghana. I do not think that the hon. and learned Member disputes that they should have that.

Mr. Paget: They have that whether or not we pass the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I agree. The question which arises, therefore, is whether we should have this duality perpetuated whereby they would be also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It would be inconsistent with the original plan that they should continue to be in that position, and we are legislating accordingly.

Mr. Paget: Is this simply a change of nomenclature? If it is, I can understand it. They are in exactly the same position, but names tend to be important. They have the same rights today as they had yesterday and will have tomorrow. If that is the position, I can understand it, but if there is an alteration in some of these rights, we ought to know the nature of the alteration before we make it.

Mr. Renton: This is certainly not a change of nomenclature, as I hope I have made clear. This is a question of duality of status.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman has been most patient, but I feel that the House has some


ground for complaint here. I think that it arises from the inadequacy of the Explanatory Memorandum. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has raised a matter of substance, and it would be helpful to the House if the Joint Under-Secretary could indicate the different obligations and privileges arising from the different kinds of status with which the Bill deals. There are four kinds—the British protected person, the subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies, the citizen of the Federation, and finally the overall, all-embracing British subject. It would have enlightened our discussion a great deal if we could have had, if not a simple description of the relative obligations of each, at least some attempt to differentiate between them.

Mr. Renton: If the hon. and learned Member will be kind enough to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the very full explanation which I have given, and which I hope has been reasonably clear, I think he will find that the perplexities are removed. I certainly do not propose to cover the ground relating to the Federation, which I hope I have explained pretty fully. Indeed, I fear that I may have strained the patience of the House. Clause 3 is, of course, of a character quite different from that of the first two Clauses we have been discussing. It is intended to enlarge the provisions of the 1948 Act, under which British subjects were able to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration. We are extending this provision to certain people who have ceased to be British subjects. Although Clause 3 contains only two substantive subsections, it applies to three separate types of case.
Subsection (1) revives the opportunity granted by Section 12 (6) of the 1948 Act to register for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. When that Act was passed, most other Commonwealth countries had not passed their citizenship laws. I think that Canada was the only one which had done so. It was intended at that time that the then existing British subjects whose British nationality would derive from their connection with those countries which had not then passed their citizenship laws should not become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they failed to acquire the separate

citizenship of the country of which they appeared to be potential citizens. The 1948 Act, therefore, made a rough and ready definition of people who were potentially citizens of other Commonwealth countries. Such people were not included in the definition of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but were given a transitional status of British subject without citizenship.
The idea was that they should have a common status but that they would have no separate citizenship until their position had been clarified and their status resolved. It was hoped that with the passing of the various citizenship laws and particularly with the giving, under Section 12 (6), of a year's grace from 31st December, anyone who was in a doubtful position would have had it clarified.
The way in which that was done was that anyone who would have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but for his citizenship or potential citizenship of another Commonwealth country could apply to the Secretary of State for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he could prove three things. The first was that he was descended in the male line from someone born or naturalised in the United Kingdom or one of the Colonies. Secondly, that he intended to make his ordinary place of residence in the United Kingdom and Colonies. Thirdly, that it was fitting that by reason of his close connection with the United Kingdom or Colonies he should become a citizen of them.
Those were the conditions on which registration could be granted by the Secretary of State. That opportunity of registration was given by the 1948 Act because it was recognised that many people likely to become citizens of Commonwealth countries nevertheless regarded themselves as primarily citizens of this country with which they had close ties, generally by ancestry, sometimes in other ways.
I am not making any criticism, but experience has shown that the provision in the 1948 Act was too narrowly drawn, and that the opportunity given by the right hon. Gentleman then was, with great respect to him, not quite big enough. It was too restrictive in three ways. In the first place, a year's grace was not long enough. People living in outlying districts of, for example, India


and Pakistan did not learn about the option which they were given until it was too late for them to collect evidence of their ancestry and submit an application within one year.
Secondly, the option was not given to people descended from ancestors born in what is now the Irish Republic, and this was understandable at the time. Thirdly, Section 12 (6) did not cover people naturalised as British subjects outside the United Kingdom in any of the other countries possessing separate citizenships.
Many cases have come to the notice of the Home Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and no doubt Members of Parliament, of people who deserve to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but who, through no fault of their own, have been unable to take advantage of the original opportunity given to them. We are therefore reviving that opportunity until 31st December, 1962, and we are extending it to people whose ancestors came from the Irish Republic or were either themselves naturalised in a Commonwealth country before 1949 or are descended from such persons. That is the first type of case which, in the broadest way, can be described as people who, through no fault of their own, missed the opportunity of registration under the 1948 Act.
The second type of case, dealt with in subsection (1, b, iii) of Clause 3 of the Bill, arises in this way. It was intended that nobody should lose their British nationality as a result of the 1948 Act. It was held that either a person would become a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies or of one of the other Commonwealth countries. Whilst it is true that nobody has lost his British nationality as a direct result of the Act, there are some—whether this was foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman or not I do not know and it does not matter—who have lost it as a result of the freedom of Commonwealth countries to legislate in any way they think fit, both as to citizenship of the Commonwealth or as to status generally.
I will give an example. I am not sure that it is a very good example because it happens to be one arising from Canada, who passed her Citizenship Act before we passed the 1948 British Nationality Act. Under the Citizenship Law of Canada it is provided that a person born

in a foreign country of a father born in Canada loses Canadian citizenship if he becomes resident outside Canada and fails to take proper steps to preserve the Canadian citizenship. Then there is an example from Australia. A naturalised Australian loses his citizenship if he stays abroad for seven years and fails to give notice of intention to retain his nationality. If such a person possesses no other citizenship within the Commonwealth, he loses British nationality, and some other cases have come to light of people unaware of the steps necessary to retain their status. Indeed, there is one Gilbertian case in which it is found that a person from a Commonwealth country can become an alien by reason of coming to reside in the United Kingdom. That, even, has arisen.

Mr. Brockway: The Minister has mentioned Canada and Australia. I wonder whether he has investigated the question of Indians in South Africa, born in princely countries but, at the time of the principal Act, citizens of Britain, and who retained citizenship rights in South Africa until the South Africa Citizen Act of 1948, and who are now stateless? What is their position under this Bill?

Mr. Renton: I would like to consider that matter. I am not in a position to deal with it now, but I will bear the point in mind.

Mr. Paget: The Minister has referred to various difficulties, such as the Gilbertian one of the man who loses his citizenship because he comes here. Why should that not happen after 1962? When we are taking powers to deal with these difficulties, why stop at 1962?

Mr. Renton: When we come to the next cases I shall mention the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that there is no time limit to the next category, but in the category of cases mentioned already it was felt reasonable to have a time limit in the original Act of 1948. Experience has shown that the time limit was not long enough, and we say—it is a matter of judgment—that if we give up to five years we shall be doing rough justice in the matter and that 31st December, 1962, is not an unreasonable period. It will be very nearly five years because we hope this Bill will not be very long in passing through both Houses of Parliament.
What would be unreasonable would be for these claims to be drifting on indefinitely into the future. Neither is it in the interests of the descendants of people who are successful or unsuccessful in applying for registration, that the matter should be left in a state of uncertainty for too many years. That is my answer to the hon. and learned Member. These are most complex matters; one cannot be a walking encyclopædia on the whole of the citizenship laws of the Commonwealth, or else I should be much more forthcoming in my answers to these questions. To return to the effect of sub-paragraph (iii) of Clause 3 (1, b), we are allowing people with the type of difficulty I have mentioned to apply for registration, and in their case there is no time limit. It is only in the previous case I mentioned, which is covered by sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), that there is a time limit. The reason why we should have no time limit there is that cases might arise at any future time of a Commonwealth country passing legislation which would give rise to the kind of difficulty which I have mentioned, and, therefore, no time limit would be appropriate.
The third type of case covered by Clause 3 is dealt with in subsection (2), which refers to Section 6 (1) of the 1948 Act, which was a provision entitling anyone who was a British subject in some other way to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, provided that he could prove that he was ordinarily resident here or in one of the Colonies and had been so for twelve months or such shorter period as the Secretary of State might accept, or could prove that he was in Crown service. Registration will be similarly granted to him.
Here again cases have come to notice of people with a strong moral claim to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, abut who, under the present law, cannot qualify under either of the two heads mentioned. For example, a young man might be born in another Commonwealth country and come here to be educated; he might then get a job with a British firm in a foreign country. So long as he remained here, he might feel no particular need to acquire our citizenship, or he might have

been under age and not entitled to do so, but on going abroad he might wish to strengthen his ties with the United Kingdom by acquiring our citizenship and yet he would be debarred from applying because he would no longer be resident here or in the service of the Crown.
Therefore, subsection (2) will enable people in that sort of position to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They will, of course, have to satisfy my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that they should be registered because of their close connection with the United Kingdom and Colonies. I am sure that the House will agree that in cases like this the Home Secretary's discretion should be allowed so as to prevent our citizenship from being available too easily to people who happen to be temporarily employed by British firms abroad and whose original connection was not with this country. It is a matter of discretion.
Here, again, we say that no time limit is necessary and, in this case, we are adding to the permanent structure of the 1948 Act, but it is only in a very minor respect.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen): Should I be right in thinking that this is the first time registration has been the subject of an Executive discretion and that previously it was entirely automatic provided that the applicant was sufficiently qualified?

Mr. Renton: This is the first time that discretion has been applied to applications for registration, but, of course, discretion has had to be exercised with naturalisation and there is not a very great distinction in principle between registration under the 1948 Act, as amended by the Bill, and an application for naturalisation.
Clause 4 is a purely technical Clause, but it is desirable that we should have it to give legislative effect to a growing administrative practice. Under Section 29 of the 1948 Act, our consular officers in foreign countries have power to register births and deaths of British subjects. In Commonwealth countries, some of our High Commissioners have been similarly authorised to keep registers of births and deaths, but they have acted on administrative instructions. They have kept the registers, which are accurate, and have


been able to give their certificates as to what they have entered in the registers.
However, there needs to have legislative force so that British subjects belonging to the United Kingdom—or any other British subject who comes to live here—can conveniently get a birth or death certificate for himself or his family from copies kept at Somerset House. Somerset House, of course, needs to act on statutory instructions, and Clause 4 will give statutory recognition not only to registers kept by the High Commissioners in future, but to those which they have kept up to now in the way which I have described. It will make certified copies of these registers valid evidence in this country of birth and death.
In conclusion, although the Bill is highly technical, and I must apologise for speaking at such length, I hope that I have been of some assistance to the House with this difficult matter. The Bill's purposes are simple and can he summarised En the following way; firstly, the Bill recognises the new situation created by the citizenship laws of Ghana and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland; secondly, it enables some deserving classes of people to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration; and, thirdly, it provides statutory authority for a useful, indeed, necessary function of High Commissioners in other countries of the Commonwealth. I hope that the House will give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill, which acknowledges the further advances which have been made in the evolution of the Commonwealth.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: When the Bill was introduced in another place, every speaker there referred to its complex and complicated nature. The exchanges between my hon. and learned Friends and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary have shown still further that it is a complex Bill. The criticism that the Explanatory Memorandum is not as full as it should have been is justified. A plea for simplicity was made during the debates in another place and I am bound to add to that, because I think that Parliamentary draftsmen tend to become too hidebound.
In the other place it was suggested that it might be possible to have a new amending

Act, which would set out the parts which are new in italics, or in some other distinctive form. I do not see why this cannot be done. I gather that in another place sympathetic consideration of this suggestion was promised, and if the Government spokesman here would consider taking back the Bill to amend it in the form that I have suggested, it might have another advantage.
The Minister did not know what was the position—so I can be forgiven if I speak in ignorance but—I think that the reason why Malaya is not included at the moment is that she has not passed her citizenship Act. If that could be done in the meantime it might be that the new amending Act could include Malaya, and so save further work in the Chamber.
As the Minister has said, the Bill seeks to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948. That Act was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The Minister has pleaded for our full co-operation, and we shall give it as far as we can, but if he will recall the debates that we had on the 1948 Measure he will remember that the party supporting Her Majesty's present Government—who were then the Opposition—showed how brutally an Opposition can behave. We are much more respectful in this matter than the Opposition were in those days. We want to examine the matter sensibly, to improve the Bill and to ensure that what we do today will benefit British citizens throughout the Commonwealth.
The real reason why my right hon. Friend introduced the 1948 Measure was to enable the United Kingdom to have her own citizenship law. This became necessary because Canada had to have a citizenship law of her own; this was forced upon her by the United States during the last war. Probably because Canada came within the area where the Monroe doctrine operated, and also for security reasons, the United States wanted the Canadians to be distinguished from other British citizens.
This new creation, of a Canadian citizen as opposed to a British citizen, therefore came about. It was inevitable that once Canada had it other Commonwealth countries would follow suit, and we now have citizens not only of Canada but of Australia, New Zealand. South


Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon—and today we are adding Ghana and, in a limited way, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
As the Minister explained, until the Second World War all the peoples within the British Commonwealth were classified as British subjects. When my right hon. Friend introduced the 1948 Bill he gave several different interpretations of the meaning of the word "British." He said that "playing the game" was thought to be British, and that the words "red on the map" were connected with the British. When we had the very cold weather the other day the term "British warm"—the British military overcoat—came to my mind. Perhaps I may be forgiven for referring to our revered friend, the late Walter Elliot—and I should like to add my tribute to his memory—by saying that I suppose that the word "British" would have brought to his mind a picture of the Celts versus the Anglo-Saxons.
Not all the people in the British Commonwealth cherish the word as we do, because some of them have languished in gaol, and the word has a different connotation to them. It is for this reason that we have the terms, "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen"—although both are the same. I make no apology for using the term "British subject". That term dates back a long time; back to 1608, the year of the Calvin case. In that case, the courts decided that anyone born within the King's allegiance, wheresoever and whensoever, enjoyed all the legal rights of a free-born denizen of England, and could not be deprived of these rights except by process of law.
The King could not put one of his subjects outside his protection. The status of "British subject" knew nothing of race, colour, or colonial prejudice. I regret to say that, in practice, we have not kept to that principle as we should have done. That is why the term "British subject" does not have the high repute that it would have had if we had followed the court's ruling.
After Canada had decided to have her own citizenship law it was necessary for the United Kingdom to determine her own position and that of others within the Commonwealth, and a Commonwealth

wealth Conference was held in 1947 to deal with the question of nationality and citizenship. As a result of that Conference and the subsequent passing of the British Nationality Act, 1948, a Commonwealth citizen was given all the advantages of being a British subject when "out of the jurisdiction".
This means that all Commonwealth citizens have full rights in the United Kingdom, but that if they go outside it they are not within the jurisdiction. So keen are we to allow all Commonwealth citizens to be British subjects and to enjoy the privileges and position of being inside the United Kingdom that we have stretched matters even further than the Commonwealth, and arrangements have been made in certain cases to allow Irishmen who wished to claim Commonwealth citizenship to do so.
It is unfortunate that other Commonwealth countries have not declared as we have done but, on the other hand, it is right that we should lead in the matter, and it may be that in the same way as any citizen of the Commonwealth can enjoy the rights of the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, some day the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and citizens of any Commonwealth country, will be able to have this common right.
The 1948 Act had a twofold purpose. It created a citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and conferred the status of "British subject" upon Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and upon every citizen of the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1 (3) of that Act. Those who became citizens of these Commonwealth countries automatically enjoyed the status of a British subject, or a Commonwealth citizen.
If, considering the Bill today, we take note that Ghana passed the Independence Act in 1957, giving Ghana her own citizenship law, we see that it becomes necessary for the Bill to implement the policy agreed at the Commonwealth Conference of 1947. Ghana was inserted in the list of Commonwealth countries in Section 1 (3) of the 1948 Act, so that those who now become citizens of Ghana are no longer classified as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—and the attainment of Ghana citizenship


automatically carries with it British or Commonwealth citizenship.
Clause 2, therefore, puts Ghana in the same category as other independent Commonwealth countries. The real purpose of the Clause is to give Ghana nationhood. That is some answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who was querying the real purpose of the Bill. Hon. Members on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the proposition relating to Ghana.
Clause 1 seeks to do the same for the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but in that case we are dealing with a territory which is not an independent Commonwealth country. There are different systems of nationality. Within the 1948 Act the citizens of Southern Rhodesia are already classed as British subjects because that country was included in the list of countries mentioned in Section 1 (3) of that Act.
This Bill seeks to substitute the Federation for Southern Rhodesia so that Southern Rhodesian subjects who are now British subjects will, when they become citizens of the Federation, still retain their rights as British subjects. The peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are not so anxious to become Federation citizens. At present, they are British-protected persons and I have no doubt that many would like to become British citizens. But they do not want to become Federation citizens and one can understand their fears.
A few days ago I read in the Daily Telegraph that, in Salisbury, African Members of Parliament must live six miles outside the city in an African township. They cannot eat in the Assembly buildings or in hotels. If they wish to eat, they have to go home. This is a maintenance and a consolidation of white domination and privilege. I recognise that many of the leading statesmen in the Federation are genuinely anxious to do away with that doctrine. Within the last few days one enlightened statesman in that area, the Prime Minister, has been at variance with other Ministers, four of whom have resigned.
I think, therefore, that we on this side of the House are entitled to be reassured that nothing in this Bill will disturb the rights and privileges of those who seek British protection rather than citizenship

of the Federation. We all hope for a successful multi-racial society in the area, but it will succeed only if British or Commonwealth citizenship is accepted in the Federation as freely and enthusiastically as in other Commonwealth countries.
Clause 3 of the Bill is quite different in character, as the Minister has said. Its purpose is to enlarge the provisions of the 1948 British Nationality Act. When that Act was passed, India and Pakistan had not defined their citizenship laws. I imagine that my right hon. Friend would say that he did not know that it would take so long; otherwise, he might have made more provision in his own Bill regarding the time during which applications for British citizenship could be made. Experience has shown that the present period was not long enough, and that is one reason why we shall be happy to support this Clause.
Many of these Indians are now stateless and are desperately anxious to become British citizens. It is pathetic to see how many stateless persons cling to their British association. I remember going to South-West Africa, in 1947, and meeting a tribe which actually called themselves and were proud to be so known, as the Rheoboth Bastards. These were people born as a result of associations between British troops and Hottentot women. They sought then, and do now, the opportunity to be British citizens.
As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), there are in South Africa over 3,000 Indians who originated from the princely States of India. It is true that they could get British citizenship by going back to India, but many of them cannot afford to do so. They have not the wealth to enable them to make the journey. The South Africans do not recognise these people, yet at one time they were British-protected persons and I think that even now we have some obligations to them. I, too, ask the Minister to give some consideration to this problem.
Under the 1948 Act all persons wishing to become United Kingdom citizens had to pass tests before 1st June, 1950. This Clause enables the date to be extended until 31st December, 1962. It also, in the words of the Minister, enables certain classes of citizens who wish to become British to make applications beyond that time. To the extent that within the Bill


residence in the United Kingdom or being in the service of the Crown entitles one to become a British or Commonwealth citizen, it is extended so that, in the case of international organisations or United Kingdom companies overseas, employees of those organisations can be considered for British citizenship.
The people who are fortunate enough to be in this kind of employment can rightly be considered when they make application to become British subjects. I ask that, in the same way as the Clause deals with them, there may be some consideration for those not so fortunate as to have such good employment, or to become closely associated with this country either by work in international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, or in British companies overseas.
Clause 4 of the Bill is quite unexceptionable. It extends the powers of the High Commissioners, particularly with regard to the recording of births and deaths. It has been explained by the Minister and nothing more need be said.
The Bill deals with four entirely different matters and everyone will agree that it is complex and complicated. With respect to the need to recognise the situation created by the Citizenship Act of Ghana, we on this side of the House give wholehearted support to the Bill. But we support with reserve the recognition of the Citizenship Act passed by the Federation. We shall want a full assurance that British-protected persons will retain the same rights as they now enjoy; that nothing will be done to whittle away the position of the British-protected persons. I know that an assurance has been given, but some of my hon. and learned Friends are examining the Bill closely to be quite sure that in no way can the position of British-protected persons be whittled away. If the Minister can give us a further assurance we shall welcome it.
We support the giving of additional powers to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to extend the area in which he can use his discretion to grant British citizenship to Stateless persons. We ask the Minister to be generous. He can count on our assistance and, to the extent that this Bill removes colonial prejudices and the

colour bar, and meets the need of an evolving and expanding Commonwealth, we are happy to give it our support.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I sympathise with the Joint Under-Secretary of State in his task of explaining this Bill, which is an extraordinarily complex Measure referring to four different types of nationality, citizenship and subjects. A Bertrand Russell would find difficulty in explaining it in terms which we could understand. In addition, the drafting of this Bill makes an explanation of it in intelligible terms almost impossible. I do not know who were the draftsmen, but though I have read many Bills I have not read one containing such legalistic jargon as hides the meaning and purpose of Clauses to a greater degree than that to be found in this Measure. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to teach the draftsmen simple, basic English.

Mr. Alport: rose—

Mr. Brockway: Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way?

Mr. Alport: I was not rising to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but only to alter my position on this bench.

Mr. Brockway: I always seek to be courteous, even when I am speaking most strongly.
I make an appeal to the Government to get rid of this appalling jargon and to find simple, basic English which would explain the purpose of the Bill and which would be just as sound legally.
I propose to express great apprehension about one part of the Bill and great appreciation of another part, and to make some inquiry about the third part. Clause 1 deals with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I recognise that in subsection (3) the rights of British-protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are maintained. I hope, however that no one will think that, if there is not a Division against this Measure tonight, it means that many of us accept the political Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Outside the Union of South Africa, it is the grossest racial dictatorship existing in the world, in which 200,000 people have 29 representatives


and 6 million people have only six representatives. I do not want it to be thought in Central Africa that if we do not oppose the Bill we accept the political basis of the Federation.
The Opposition voted against the Measure which established the Federation because, in our view, it ought not to have been imposed against the wishes of the African population. At present, the Federation is going through a period of probation. One may almost say that it is a criminal on licence for good behaviour. It will be in 1960, when the constitution comes under review, that the federal basis should be accepted or rejected by this House in legislation of permanent form. I think it right that that view should be expressed frankly and clearly, lest it be suggested at a later date that because we did not oppose the Bill we accepted the political basis of federation in Central Africa.
The part of the Bill which I want to praise is that which deals with Ghana, which is a great contrast to the federation in Central Africa. It is composed of people having universal suffrage, and a citizenship which expresses democratic rights. We welcome the fact that the men and women of Ghana are now citizens of that indepedendent country and we pay our tribute to the manner in which the Administration are dealing with difficult social and economic problems. We express our hope that Ghana will proceed not only to national political freedom but to great social and economic freedoms as well.
The part of the Bill about which I make inquiries is Clause 3, which seeks to extend the powers to register persons as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. As I indicated in an interruption, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), leading for the Opposition, said, this Clause affects the position of the Indian population of the Union of South Africa who were born in what were known as the native States of India and are now known as the princely States. At the time of the enactment of the principal Act they were recognised as British-protected persons and, up to the passing of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, were granted passports from South Africa. Since then, they have become stateless.
I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to give me his attention when I ask whether these persons come under Clause 3. If they do not, will he agree to amend the Bill so as to include them? I would refer him to Section 12 (3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, which reads:
A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act shall on that date become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he was born within the territory comprised at the commencing of this Act in a protectorate, protected state or United Kingdom trust territory.
The Indians to whom I refer come under that Section.
It may be argued that because this Indian population was provided with passports by the Union of South Africa up to the passing of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, and in that sense were recognised as citizens of South Africa, that because of that interim stage of recognition, they lost the right to be regarded as British subjects.
I want the Under-Secretary of State to turn his attention to subsection (1, b, iii) of Clause 3, and I ask him whether it covers the Indian population to whom I have referred, since it reads:
(iii) that having been at the date of the commencement of the principal Act a citizen of such a country, or having (whether before or after the coming into operation of this section) been made one by the coming into operation of any law of such a country, he has lost that citizenship otherwise than by his own act done for the purpose, and has thereby ceased to be a British subject.
That appears to me, as a layman, to cover the Indians of South Africa who were born in the princely States, were British-protected persons at the time of the principal Act, were recognised for a time in the Union of South Africa by the granting of passports, and who, through no fault of their own, have now lost that citizenship. Does this Indian population come within the terms of that subsection?
I think it worth while going into greater detail about what is happening to this Indian population in South Africa. It numbers 3,000. They were born in the princely States of India prior to the independence of that country and were then, as I have said, British-protected persons and are now stateless. The citizenship laws of South Africa, India and the United Kingdom give no citizen rights to such persons and, in consequence, they have to suffer many humiliations and disabilities.
Persons resident in India, including the princely States, at the time India was granted independence were given rights of citizenship of India and classed as British subjects, but persons born in the princely States and resident in South Africa at the time of the recognition of independence of India were, by some omission, given no status in the constitution of India, nor was any provision made for them in the British Nationality Act of 1948. The South African Citizenship Act conferred citizenship rights only on British subjects and not on British-protected persons. Now as a consequence they are stateless, unable to obtain passport facilities, refused visas by many countries, and even entry by some countries.
Even in the United Kingdom, these formerly British-protected persons are regarded as aliens and require visas in order to come here. Surely Section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, was intended to make all Indians British subjects? Was this an oversight in the drafting of the original Act? In my view, the Bill in clear terms should reinstate them as British subjects. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman that, pending that, the High Commissioner in South Africa should be authorised to issue passports to them.
I have gone into this matter in some detail because it seems an issue of profound significance where British-protected persons have now become stateless not by any fault of their own but by the fact that they live in a country which practices the colour bar and makes them outlaws in their own land.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Joint Under-Secretary of State had a difficult task in explaining this Bill, and I can assure him that he had my most practical sympathy because, of all the Measures with which I have been connected, the principal Act, from which this Measure derives, was the most complicated, the most difficult to understand, and one which I always regarded as almost impossible to explain.
It was, of course, a pleasure to see one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law being cross-examined by two others, my hon. and learned Friends the Members for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

I thought they allowed him to get away with it rather more easily because he was in the fraternity than I have ever known one of Her Majesty's counsel learned in the law to allow an ordinary layman in the witness box to get away with the plea that he cannot answer now but at some other time he will be able to do so.
This Bill is another step in the onward march of the conception of the Commonwealth to which we belong. In an era when nationality is becoming more and more the ideal of peoples, it is a very good thing that we can give a practical exemplification of the way in which people with the strongest ties of nationhood, the greatest ties in newly-acquired nationality, can come into a great free Commonwealth in which they have every opportunity of giving expression to any of the aspirations they have. It is important that we should recognise how important our place in the world is in giving this example to our fellow human beings.
I have just been reading the life of Frederick II, the great Holy Roman Emperor—certainly the Pope would not regard him as holy, and it seems very doubtful whether he was in fact a Roman—who lost his imperial dynasty through his activities and the conflicts he raised by the place he held at the beginning of his reign in the affairs of the world. He had a not dissimilar task from ours in Italy and Germany, with a wonderfully mixed population, including Saracens, his sympathy with whom was one of the real indictments when he was accused of heresy. The most serious in the thirteenth century seemed to be the accusation that he took a bath every day and, therefore, in those days he was not regarded, I gather, as a civilised human being.
I am quite prepared to let all the troubles which arose at the time of the British Nationality Act disappear because now a phrase is accepted which then was greeted with derision, "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies." It is now recognised as one of the great distinctions that certain people occupy in the world. I have always felt it was a sound thing that the United Kingdom, whose genius for self-government was being extended throughout the world to people of a multitude of racial origins, should be regarded by them as a matter of pride.
I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should take particular care to see that the number of stateless persons in the world who regard themselves as part of our fraternity shall be reduced. If there are people like the natives of the princely States of India, to whom he referred, who have managed to drift into the stateless position—they certainly have not done it of their own volition—every effort should he made to give them the position in the world which comes, especially in these clays, from being members of a civilised State to which they can look for protection and of whose honour they have to be careful in their relationships with other peoples of the world.
There is nothing more sad than the idea that, in this age that has seen so terrific an emphasis on the idea of nationhood, there are scattered about the world hundreds of thousands of people who are now described as stateless and who have no one to look to as fellow citizens in the trials that they have to endure.
I am glad that the opportunity for registration is being extended. I hope that when 1962 arrives it may be found that there is still a way of continuing the opportunity for people who from time to time may stand in need of registering. I think we were right to impose a time limit when we did, because it is essential when making a fresh start, as we did in the British Nationality Act, to make sure that people are induced to come in and declare themselves one way or the other—that they should either register or make it clear that they do not wish to. Undoubtedly the year that they were allowed has proved to be too short a time, and I sincerely hope that all the people who wish to register will try to do so within the period.
However, I am certain, from my own unhappy memories of the complexity of this matter, that after 1962 there will still occasionally be a person who ought to have registered but, for some reason or another, did not know that he would be required to do so to retain a status which he has persuaded himself he already enjoyed.
The original Act emerged from a conference of all the free nations then involved in this question of nationality. I

regret to find that, although there was complete agreement at that conference about the future and that an effort should be made to ensure that there would be a mutual relationship that would put all of us in an equal position as citizens of the Commonwealth, some countries appear to have made a minor modification which cuts across the general line. I hope that every effort will be made to keep the idea of Commonwealth citizenship as something that will not give rise to the sort of problems that caused the original Act to be drafted and which might, if the modifications become too serious, lead to a future general Act having to be considered and passed.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) said. I never felt that it was an indignity to be called a British subject. I never expected to be called anything else. When applied to people who regarded themselves as having been conquered, the word "subject" took on a connotation that I am sure no one present this evening has ever felt when he has used the phrase that he was a British subject. I recollect that when the Germans invaded the Channel Islands they said, "We have come to liberate you from the British yoke" and the Channel Islanders replied, "You have made quite a mistake. England never conquered us. As a matter of fact, we conquered England." As far as I can make out, at the time of the Battle of Hastings they were merely line-of-communication troops. Nevertheless, that is a feeling which they hold very strongly.
It is, I think, regrettable that a debate on so important a matter as this has been so sparsely attended, because, technical and complicated as the matter may be, what we have been discussing tonight goes to the root of our association in this great federation and brotherhood of free nations, which I believe is the best hope for the future peace of the world and for mutual understanding between people of different races, creeds and colours. They can enjoy within their own frontiers, which we all recognise, the self-development which they wish to have, and they can come here if they want to; and may the day be long distant when anyone will be able to refuse to any citizen of the Commonwealth the right to land here and


stay here, for we are the one exemplification in the world that the brotherhood of man does not end on the shores of any country or continent.

8.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I hope that the springs of sympathy demonstrated by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) have not been exhausted for the benefit of my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, because I deserve a share of them. My hon. and learned Friend has explained the details of the Bill and it falls to me, as clearly and shortly as I can, to explain some of the points which have been raised in the debate.
I am sure that the House agrees that nothing affronts our conception of fairness more than a disability imposed on an individual by a technical defect of the law. It has been clear from what has been said on both sides of the House that, in so far as the Bill is intended to remove some of the inequities caused unwittingly by the operation of the 1948 Act, it makes a real appeal to hon. Members. I can assure the House that my noble Friend will approach the problem of deciding on applications which are referred to him under Clause 3 with humanity and an understanding of the importance which a favourable decision may mean in the lives of the applicants.
The House is aware that most of the cases occur in India, Pakistan and Ceylon, I should explain that the numbers concerned are relatively small. Most of these people are known personally to our various High Commissioners, and my noble Friend will, therefore, be fully and accurately informed about the circumstances of each case where it is necessary for the application to be referred to him. He will also scrutinise the instructions issued to United Kingdom High Commissioners, who will have the responsibility for registering the applicants, to ensure that those instructions conform with the intention of the Bill and with the approach which the House has made to this problem.
I aim sure that all hon. Members agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields when he hopes that the Bill,

as an Act, will contribute in some way to a reduction in the number of stateless people in the world. We hope that it will, in fact, do so.
Turning now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), I do not think that the Bill applies to ex-natives of the princely states who are in South Africa and who are rendered Stateless as a result of the operation of the appropriate South African legislation. These people were never British subjects. A period elapsed between the Independence Acts for India and Pakistan and the passing of the South African legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The mantle of protection—these people were British-protected persons—at the moment of the passing of the Independence Acts of Pakistan and India fell, so to speak, from the shoulders of the United Kingdom on to the shoulders of Pakistan and India.
In so far as there is any reference back to a previous status, it is to a potential status, presumably as citizens of India or of Pakistan. This, therefore, does not affect the United Kingdom, and it is something not covered by the legislation with which we are concerned this evening.

Mr. Brockway: Very high legal opinion takes a view of the matter different from that of the hon. Gentleman and reads the Bill in a quite different way. I ask him to look at the matter again. Moreover, if he does come to the conclusion that the present Bill does not cover these people, he will, I hope, amend it so that it does.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I might come back to the hon. Gentleman's last point later, because it goes to the root of the whole idea lying behind the status of British subject, Commonwealth citizenship and citizenship of the various individual territories of the Commonwealth.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) asked me a number of questions, the first of which related to why Malayan citizenship was not dealt with, like the citizenship of Ghana, in the legislation we are considering. The answer is that Malayan citizenship is covered by the Malaya Independence Act. There is a difference between the situation in Malaya and in Ghana.
As the House knows, there are people of Malaya, particularly in the Settlements of Malacca and Penang, who have for many generations had, and been proud of, British citizenship, the equivalent of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies since the passing of the Act of 1948. It was agreed at the time that they should continue to enjoy dual citizenship for the future so as not to upset the long-felt pride which they had in belonging to, and being closely associated with, the United Kingdom. There will, therefore, in the case of Malaya, he a minority who will enjoy a dual status as citizens of Malaya on the one hand and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on the other.
In Ghana, as we have heard from an earlier explanation given by my hon. and learned Friend, there will be a small number who will enjoy dual citizenship. However, it is the wish of the Commonwealth Governments as a whole that dual citizenship should be avoided as far as possible.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is no longer here, but I can say that the whole question of citizenship is an integral part of the claim to sovereign status made by independent members of the Commonwealth on achieving that sovereignty, and must be considered in that context. There is no intention on the part of any member of the Commonwealth to try, so to speak, to poach citizens who properly belong to another Commonwealth member. That is, I think, inherent in the whole idea that lay behind the original citizenship conference and the passing of the various pieces of legislation.
Let me now turn to a second matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman—the better presentation of a Bill of this sort. He suggested that we should reproduce in the context of this Bill the relevant passages in the original 1948 Act, but that, he will realise, would bring those passages into discussion, and make them the subject of the consideration of the House all over again. My view is that his idea, so far from making the situation clearer, would, in fact, tend to make consideration of this Bill not only longer but more complicated.
I fully realise that this Measure is not easy to understand—I can assure the House that I realise that as much as anyone could—but, at the same time, we

must accept the fact that this is, inevitably, a complicated subject. It is set out as clearly as possible, I think, by the parliamentary draftsmen, who have the invidious task of trying to ensure not only that it is as clear as possible to Members of Parliament but is legally sound on the score of future interpretation.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept what the Under-Secretary has said about presentation, but the Bill is to go out to British subjects throughout the world. They are the people who have to look at it and understand it, and I was appealing, as much as anything, for simplicity, so that they can see what is being done. It would help us, too.

Mr. Alport: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the fact is that those who are to be affected by this Measure in, for instance, India and Pakistan, will have the advantage of explanation through the High Commissioners' offices on the spot, and will not be required to understand the details of the legislation we pass in this House.
Another point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and by other hon. Members, referred to the position of British-protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Broadly speaking, what happens is that, in Southern Rhodesia, Clause 1 (1, a) substitutes Federal citizenship for Southern Rhodesian citizenship; and subsection (1, b) takes the two protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland out of the operation of the principal Act of 1948, while subsection (3) puts them back again for all purposes, with one minor exception.
The result is that, in the main, the status of the British-protected person is fully preserved. As hitherto, persons born in the Northern Territories will continue to have the status of British-protected persons, a status to which, as the House is well aware, they attach great importance. The only difference is that a British-protected person who wishes to become a British subject, will do so in future by simple registration as a Federal citizen first, instead of by the complicated process of naturalisation, as is, at present, the case.
Between the passing of the 1948 Act and the present time, only 25 British-protected persons—22 in Northern Rhodesia and three in Nyasaland—have


availed themselves of the facilities provided under the 1948 Act to become citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies by naturalisation. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can, therefore, be assured that the position of the British-protected person is fully safeguarded by the legislation that we are now considering.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Alport: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) has returned to his place, because there was one other point raised by him in an intervention in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend in which he asked whether the Federal Parliament could abolish the status of British-protected persons in the Federation.
It is natural that I should like to give more consideration to the answer in due course, but my preliminary answer is that it could not, because such legislation would not be within the powers of the Federal Parliament as set out in the Federal Constitution. If a Federal Act were passed with that object, it would be ultra vires and could be declared so by the courts. This is a complicated problem, and possibly this is a matter which we will have a further opportunity of considering when we come to the Committee stage.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say how grateful I am to hear him give that assurance, and to express my regret that other business made it impossible for me to attend the whole of the debate?

Mr. Alport: If I may continue, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough made some very unhappy, unfortunate and, indeed, undesirable remarks, I thought, about the Federation. The views that he expressed brought me to the conclusion, which I have often reached when listening to him, that he is really the greatest racialist of them all.

Mr. Brockway: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that?

Mr. Alport: The truth is that in these matters of citizenship and the relationship

between the two communities in the Federation, a strenuous and imaginative effort is being made at present, at a time of very great difficulty, as are all periods of transition, to overcome the divisions which have existed in the past and which are inevitable in any plural or multiracial society such as the Federation. I wish to dissociate myself from the sort of statement made too easily by hon. Gentlemen like the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, which do great harm to the tranquility of and good race relations in a country like the Federation at this juncture.
Finally, let me say, in reply to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that the principle behind the Act of 1948 is to try to allocate the individuals in the Commonwealth to the citizenship of the Commonwealth country to which they are most closely connected. That seems to me to be a vital principle and a test for the Bill which we are considering tonight. It would be wrong—and this I suggested earlier, in reference to a point made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough—for us to give the impression in dealing with this legislation that we seek in any way to appropriate to our own citizenship individuals whose real connections are not with the United Kingdom or Colonies, but with some other member of the Commonwealth.
I am quite certain that, although this may be a complicated Bill, if that principle is retained in the mind of the House during its consideration we shall ensure that we are able to keep on the right lines. It is certainly in that spirit and on those lines that the Bill is drafted. I hope that the House will be prepared to give it a Second Reading, realising that, although the subject is one of great legal complexity, it has great significance also in relation to the individual happiness and the future not of large numbers of people but of a certain number to whom we in this country stand under some obligation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

8.56 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill has already been fully explained in the earlier stages, and the House has been good enough to give it unanimous support. At this stage, therefore, I do not think I need bother the House with more than a brief summary of its main provisions. The object of the Bill is to provide money to meet part of the capital expenditure of the Post Office during the next two years. It authorises the Treasury to issue for that purpose sums up to a total of £75 million and defines the ways in which the Treasury may borrow the sums. Provision is made for repayment to the Exchequer of the sums issued.
The Post Office will be spending on capital expenditure during the next two years not only the £75 million mentioned in the Bill but a total of £180 million, of which £105 million will be found from internal sources and not from borrowing. This is a change in practice which we have introduced this year. By ploughing depreciation charges back into the Post Office, we are putting our arrangements for borrowing on a more realistic basis, and I am sure that the House will approve.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has discharged the responsibility of moving the Third Reading with his usual competence in these matters, but I did not agree with him when he said that on Second Reading the Bill was fully explained. I have read the debate and I do not think that the Assistant Postmaster-General replied to the whole of it. That is quite natural in the circumstances because the debate ranged widely. It is equally true that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) raised matters of substance which were not dealt with in the Assistant Postmaster-General's reply.
I am not complaining, because I know how difficult it is to reply to such a wide-ranging debate in a comparatively short time, and the hon. Gentleman, if I may say so without patronage, is always courteous and helpful in the House about Post Office matters. This Third Reading debate gives us another chance to obtain the information which we feel we ought to have in much more detail about the way in which this money is to be spent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The Bill does not deal with the spending of the money but with raising the capital. If questions are raised on that line I do not think that I can allow them to be answered.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite understand your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we are concerned in the Bill with the amount of capital to be raised, whether the amount is really necessary, and whether we should allow the Government to have it or not. The Government still have to make their case for having the money under the Bill. Anything relating to the purposes for which this money is required is certainly in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that all this Bill did was to allow the money to be raised, and that the spending of it comes within the Estimates, and not here. I am open to correction, but that is what I understood.

Mr. Ness Edwards: If you will allow me to go on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will find that I shall not be straining the rules of order in what I have to say about the information for which we are asking the Postmaster-General.
I can make this point, as the Assistant Postmaster-General made it in moving the Third Reading, that this is the first money Bill since the alteration of the relations between the Post Office and the Treasury. What this money Bill proposes to do is to find the difference between the depreciation fund and the capital programme of the Post Office over the next two years. We have been told that this is why the money is required, and that is the point I am seeking to make. In my view, the Post Office has had to pay very highly for this kind of financial liberty from the Treasury. If the money that had been earned by the instruments


which are now to be replaced had been put to the credit of the Post Office, it would not have been necessary for it to ask for this £75 million.
We have been told by the Assistant Postmaster-General that this expenditure will be based upon a two-year programme of £180 million. We understand that £105 million will come from the Post Office depreciation fund and that the £75 million provided for in the Bill will be on loan from the Treasury. We also understand that the £75 million is supposed to carry the Post Office on for the next two years.
We want to know whether all this money will be required. During the last few weeks there has been much controversy about cutting Estimates, about cutting capital investment. If the Estimates are to be cut, this amount of money will not be required. We want to know from the Postmaster-General whether or not he has Treasury consent for his two-year development programme which requires the £75 million provided for by this Bill. I hope that we shall get a categorical answer to that.
The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to the fact that the money is to be repaid to the Treasury. Since the right hon. Gentleman has been at the Post Office, he has introduced a number of innovations. I am prepared to give him credit for those which have been beneficial, although we shall criticise him for those which we think are not beneficial, but that is as it should be. Will the right hon. Gentleman devote his attention, and apply his energy, to the method by which this money is to be repaid?
Clause 2 provides for it to be repaid on the basis of 20-year annuities. This is the only nationalised undertaking which is to repay on a 20-year basis. I believe that the National Coal Board has a 60-year basis. Some of the others have shorter periods, but the Post Office is, and has been all along, during my time as well as that of the right hon. Gentleman, treated unduly harshly by the Treasury.
Many of the materials and the constructions upon which the money is to be spent will last for much longer than twenty years—some, unfortunately, for one hundred years—and I should have thought that the current burden on the Post Office would have been decreased if that period could

have been extended. I ask the Postmaster-General to consider that, and to say something about it when he replies.
We have had no indication of the manner in which the money is to be spent. We were told in the Second Reading debate that £167 million of the £180 million—a vast proportion—would be spent on telecommunications, £6 million on telegraphs, and £7 million on postal services. The Estimates will tell us what is to happen this year, but we have had no information about the two-year programme.
If I remember rightly, when we discussed automation, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office ought to have a three-year programme for its general planning and yet we find financial planning is to be on a two-year basis. How can there be a three-year plan for the development of Post Office services on a two-year financial basis? That is a matter calling for comment by the right hon. Gentleman and something on which there might be some innovations.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that he will probably get the best results of his capital investment programme from automation. Can he tell us whether any of this money will be required for applying automation to the trunk system? What programme for automation for the trunk system does he have? Can he tell us how many more telephone exchanges there are to be, what his building programme is, and what he is doing about sorting offices? All these are matters on which it is said the money is to be spent, but we have not been told how the right hon. Gentleman will spend the money when he gets it.
On Second Reading, the Postmaster-General told us that he intended to set up a number of committees to advise him on spending this money. I think that it is appropriate to refer to that. He said:
As a matter of principle, the Post Office will have to consider the appointment of a committee of business people and representatives of the public to advise the Postmaster-General of the day, and when the information has been assembled the Postmaster-General will know what to do.
What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that? Is the Post Office Advisory Committee to be replaced.


That Committee, established by our predecessors a long time ago, has been functioning for many years. It is a responsible body and representative of very substantial sections of the community, including, I believe, Members of Parliament from both sides of The House. When I held office I always found it a very useful instrument. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to abolish it and set up a new committee?
The Minister said that the question of telegraph service was a very difficult one, and that he proposed to spend £6 million on it. He said that he would set up a new committee, presided over by Sir Leonard Sinclair, Chairman of Esso Petroleum Company. Has that committee met? Who are its members? What sort of advice will it give? Shall we have its report? Is he asking for money for two years for the telegraph service? The committee may tell him that some of this money is unnecessary. It is for him to make out a case on that matter.
In referring to another committee he said:
I hope to meet the chairmen and technicians of various firms during the next week or so—certainly before Christmas…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 642–3.]
I thought that that was in connection with the application of electronics to the Post Office. Has that committee met? If so, what has it said? Those are some of the matters upon which we should like to have some information.
One other point. Last year, the right hon. Gentleman raised telephone rentals for private subscribers very substantially, and on 1st January he reduced the charges for calls. That substantially benefited business people, but it did not take away the harshness of the rental increase. What effect has that alteration had up his revenue?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Postmaster-General tries to answer that question I shall rule him out of order. It does not come within the terms of the Third Reading debate on the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the revenue which the Post Office gets determines the amount which it must borrow, under the new arangement, from the Treasury, so that anything relating to the revenue has an

effect upon the amount of money which has to be obtained from the Treasury. We are talking about an entirely different financial relationship between the Post Office and the Treasury from that which existed prior to the new White Paper concerning that relationship. Anything which is likely to increase the surplus of the Post Office, therefore, has a bearing upon the amounts to be raised from the Treasury, and in that sense is in order. That is my submission.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I may be wrong, but that is not what Erskine May says, and I must be guided by its ruling. It points out that on the Third Reading the debate is restricted and limited to matters contained in the Bill. Although all these matters may be interesting on other occasions, they do not arise on this occasion. The Bill deals with the raising of money, and how it should be spent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The amount of money asked for in the Bill is determined by what happens inside the Post Office, and if the House feels that because of certain circumstances the amount of money required by the Bill is not necessary it is surely entitled to discuss the matter, and, if necessary, to vote against the Bill. To prove that the amount is too large we must argue about the internal finances of the Post Office.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That might be in order in a Second Reading debate, and it certainly would be in order on Supply.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have put certain points to the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be able to answer them, in so far as he has to justify the demand for the £75 million that he is making in the Bill. Unless he can give a satisfactory reply to justify his demand, I shall divide the House.

9.15 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am confused as to which questions raised by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) I can answer and which I cannot. As I understand it, I should be in order only in discussing the total volume of money which the Post Office is trying to raise. For the next two years the Post Office estimates that its requirements on capital account will be £180 million. For the


last two years in the Money Act which was passed they were £185 million. So £180 million is devoted, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly analysed it, between the telephone, postal and telegraph services, the bulk of which will go to the telephone service and will be devoted to automation, new equipment, new telephones and so on.
Of the £180 million, £105 million, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will be provided by Post Office revenue under the depreciation provisions, and under this Bill we ask for only £75 million from the Treasury to be drawn as and when the Post Office asks for it for capital purposes. This money is being raised by the Treasury for and on behalf of the Post Office so that when the Post Office asks for it for a particular development it can get it and pay the necessary interest on it. In the Post Office—in fact if it were a private business I should say the same thing—it would be very difficult for any Postmaster-General to say what precise sum of money he would draw in April, 1959, or at any other time, from the Treasury on capital account. The main point is that it is estimated as the overall provision that the Post Office will need.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some questions which I should like to answer if possible. If you, Mr. Speaker, rule me out of order, I shall accept your Ruling with good grace, although I should like to answer the questions in order to help the right hon. Gentleman. He asked a number of things about the committees we were going to set up. He asked about the committee on telegraphs. The terms of reference as announced to the House first on 5th December, 1957, were
to advise the Postmaster-General on the future place of the inland public telegraph service as part of the communication facilities of the United Kingdom.
The Chairman is Sir Leonard Sinclair, who is also Chairman and Managing Director of Esso Petroleum Company Ltd. The members of the Committee—this is the first time they have been announced in alphabetical order—are Mr. W. B. Beard, O.B.E., General Secretary of the United Pattern Makers Association—

Mr. C. R. Hobson: And a good man, too.

Mr. Marples: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman approves. Dame Frances Farrer, D.B.E., General Secretary of the National Federation of Women's Institutes; Sir Norman Kipping, J.P., M.I.E.E., M.I.P.E., Director-General of the Federation of British Industries, and Professor F. W. Paish, M.C., Professor of Economics at the University of London. The Committee has already met. It asked me when I should expect a report, would I set a date or leave it to the Committee, and I have left the whole matter to the Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should leave it at that. This has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill. Although I am interested in hearing the views of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, I am afraid that I must stop him at this stage.

Mr. Marples: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I was merely trying to be courteous to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly. I have said all that I can say within the rules of order, and therefore I am afraid that I cannot answer most of the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I will take a note of them and answer them by letter so that the right hon. Gentleman will not be without an answer.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: When moving the Third Reading, the Assistant Postmaster-General stated that provision was being made to provide £150 million from the Post Office's own resources. How is the Post Office to be financed from its own resources? Is this a resuscitation of the Post Office Fund?
There used to be a fund into which some of the Post Office surplus was transferred for the capital development of the Department. The new idea in the Bill is that the Post Office is to be self-financing. What does this mean? Does it mean that part of the surplus of the Post Office is to be earmarked as a special fund for capital development?
We are told that £75 million is to be raised from the Consolidated Fund. What rate of interest is to be paid? That is a very relevant question in view of the present practice of Her Majesty's Government of increasing interest rates and of putting an incubus of cost on the people who use the Post Office services.

Mr. Marples: Rates of interest are dealt with on page 27, paragraph 5, of the Posy Office Commercial Accounts and Reports, published last year. It states that rates of interest are prescribed by the Treasury and are those ruling when the debt was incurred. The interest paid in 1956–57 represented 4 per cent. on outstanding capital. The average interest payable on new capital was 5·1 per cent. at the time of the Report. At the moment, we borrow from the Treasury at about 6 per cent. The rate varies, as it does with the Public Works Loan Board.
My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General did not say that £150 million was to be provided, but £105 million. That is the ordinary prudent commercial practice of charging depreciation in the commercial accounts which form the basis on which Post Office charges are made. If an allowance is made for depreciation, the sum of money which is earmarked can be spent first of all on new assets whether they be replacements or entirely new equipment. Anything wanted over and above that will come from borrowing from the Treasury.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: There is not an awful lot to quarrel with in the Bill, which is an enabling Bill. It certainly enables the Post Office to borrow up to £75 million from the Treasury. It may be that the sum will be only £50 million or £60 million, dependent upon something that happens within the Post Office, or upon something laid down by the other signatory to the Bill, the Treasury, about the capital development permitted to the Post Office.
One question which was in order and could have been answered now is whether or not it is likely that £75 million over the next two years will be necessary or can be lowered. The House will only give a Third Reading to the Bill if it is satisfied that up to £75 million is necessary. What has gone on in previous stages of the Bill confirms our view that the Postmaster-General and his assistants are not to be trusted. Nothing has been said tonight that justifies their demand for unanimous confidence of the House of Commons in handling this vast amount of money.
What is the purpose for which it is to be borrewd? We can give the Government the right to borrow money only if they tell us the purpose for which it is to be borrowed. Admittedly it has to be borrowed for the development of the Post Office. [Interruption.] If the Law Officer for England wishes to intervene I will gladly give way, but, despite his high legal standing, I do not think he has any right to usurp the authority of the Chair. You, Mr. Speaker, will quickly, call me to order if I go beyond the rules.
The Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have not the confidence of the people of Scotland because they see that the Post Office is not in the hands of people other than those prejudiced in respect of one aspect of business, the borrowing of money for the necessary purpose of capital development within the Post Office. If they have not got the confidence of the people of Scotland I am entitled to express the view on Third Reading of this Bill that we should reject the Bill. I think I am entitled to say that and to invite the House to reject the Bill and say exactly why we should reject it. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend have been questioned by a very considerable number of people in Scotland in respect of development within the postage service of the Post Office which may well entail a considerable sum of money.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in this Bill about the services for which the money is to be spent. That does not come into the Third Reading. The question is whether the Post Office shall have this money advanced to it in the way set out in the Bill. That is the only question before the House on Third Reading. On Second Reading, it is customary to have a general debate on the services of the Post Office so that these matters can be discussed, but not on Third Reading. This is not the first time the Bill has been before the House; the House has had it before.

Mr. Ross: I admit that, but because we got such unsatisfactory answers on that occasion this matter is being raised once again and is likely to be raised many more times. That is the matter on which Mr. Speaker says I am out of order.

Mr. Speaker: It can be raised on occasions when it is in order, when I shall


listen to it with great pleasure, but I am not allowed to listen to it on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Ross: I think what you mean, Mr. Speaker, is that you will listen to one side of it with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker: No, I shall listen to both sides of it with great pleasure.

Mr. Ross: I shall be interested, Mr. Speaker, in your private views on the reaction of the Postmaster-General to the suggestion. So far it cannot have given great pleasure to anyone at all in Scotland.
There is only one other point in respect of this matter. Obviously in the expenditure of this £75 million and the development of the Post Office which will be made possible by it the Postmaster-General is going to take advice. He has a Committee which has been acting in respect of this for quite a long time, the Post Office Advisory Committee, of which I have been a member for a considerable time. I think this is in order from the point of view that that Committee has dealt with questions of development in the Post Office on which, without this Bill, there could be no development.

Mr. Speaker: There is no mention of that Committee in the Bill. If he wishes to make a speech, the hon. Member must confine himself to the matters of finance laid down here. We are not dealing with the purposes for which the money is to be spent; there is no mention of that.

Mr. Ross: May I ask whether or not the Postmaster-General has discussed with that Committee this way of raising this money?

Mr. Speaker: That would be quite irrelevant to discussion on Third Reading.

It is a question for the House to decide, and not for any committee.

Mr. Ross: The point is that this Committee has not met for quite a long time—

Mr. Marples: I think that that is not true. The Committee has met—

Mr. Speaker: It may be true or false, but it is quite irrelevant on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member did not turn up.

Mr. Ross: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point of this, I can tell him quite frankly that the Committee only meets when he decides to raise charges.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not persist on this matter.

Mr. Ross: I would not have raised the matter at all if I had been allowed to make my short intervention, and I would not have mentioned the Committee at all but for the fact that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, allowed the Postmaster-General to read out a whole list of names.

Mr. Speaker: That was just after I came in and before I had grasped the enormity of the crime which was being perpetrated against the rules of the House.

Mr. Ross: I have made the point which I wished to make. However, I cannot see any reason why we should entrust the raising of this possible £75 million to the Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General so long as they in their prejudice deny the people of Scotland their desired use of some of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.32 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had no explanation at all from the Government side of this Bill. I agree that it is a consolidation Measure, and I suppose it might be anticipated that we would follow the practice which has been followed in another place and that the Bill would go through in all its stages merely on the nod. I had thought that at least there would be someone representing the Board of Trade on the Front Bench to tell us about this consolidation Measure and to make a statement about it on behalf of the Government.
Surely, in a Measure of this kind, while we shall not in any way dispute the consolidation, or the need for it, the point of administration is surely one that can be dealt with when we deal with a Measure of this kind. That is how all the Acts that are now being consolidated in one Bill will be carried out. We will levy a tax and collect tax from an industry which, at the moment, is almost dying on its feet.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member rose to a point of order. I have not yet heard a point of order.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had hoped that during the time I was raising the point, of order there might have been a responsible Minister from the Department on the Front Bench, and that we might have heard a word from the Department on this Bill. If I may assume that the Solicitor-General is acting in that capacity, I am prepared to resume my seat forthwith and to hear him.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): So that there might be no sign of discourtesy to the House or to the hon. Gentleman, I will explain that this is purely a consolidation Bill. The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not dispute the consolidation or the need for it. As far as I understand the rules of order, Mr. Speaker, that is the only topic that we can discuss and it therefore

embarrasses me to assist the hon. Gentleman, who does not desire to object to the only topic that I may discuss in his presence.

Mr. Rankin: I want to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the speech which he has made and I am sorry that it has, evidently necessarily, been so short. Is it not in order to say something about the administration of this Measure?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order to do so on Second Reading. The only question before the House on the principle of the Bill is whether it is advisable to consolidate these various enactments, as is now proposed, or to leave them scattered about in different Finance Acts and other Statutes. That is the only question which is in order on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH FUNDS (INVESTMENT)

9.36 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: I beg to move,
That the Church Funds Investment Measure, 1957, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
The Motion deals with a Measure, passed by the Church Assembly, entitled the Church Funds Investment Measure, 1957. That Measure arises from the need which has been felt since the end of the war to simplify and facilitate the administration of the very numerous church moneys scattered about in the country, some in the hands of dioceses and even down to parish level.
The present scheme is modelled on that which was reported on in 1945 by a Financial Commission of the Church Assembly and it bears a close resemblance to the Universities and Colleges Trust Act, 1943. I want to make it clear to those who have not read the explanation furnished by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament


that the moneys with which this Measure deals have nothing whatever to do with the invested funds of the Church in the hands of the Church Commissioners, which are under Parliamentary control. It deals with all the other diverse funds held under numerous and different trusts.
Broadly speaking, the scheme is permissive; there is no compulsion upon any of the trustees in charge of these funds to use the Central Board of Finance of the Church, as this Measure empowers them to do. Under the scheme the Central Board will set up two funds—a Deposit Fund and an Investment Fund. Those who wish to use the Deposit Fund will pay their money into it and will receive a rate of interest, permanently, to be negotiated between themselves and the Central Board of Finance. When they wish, and with proper notice, they will be entitled to withdraw from the fund the same amount of money as they put in, no more and no less. It is envisaged that the kind of use which will be made of that fund is where it is not so much a question of receiving a substantial income as a question of the conservation of a fixed amount of capital.
One of the differences between the Investment Fund and the Deposit Fund is that the securities in which investment is permitted are quite wide. In the Deposit Fund they are closely restricted to those laid down in the Measure, whereas in the Investment Fund the managers, the Central Board of Finance, will be able to invest in any good thing which their financial advisers commend to them, including equities.
The investor also, having given due notice, will be entitled to withdraw that money, but he will have no absolute right to withdraw precisely the amount of capital he put in. He will have rights, broadly speaking, similar to the rights enjoyed by an investor in a unit trust system, rights which are more particularly and in great detail—I shall not go into them now—set forth in the Schedule to the Measure. The details of the scheme are fully described by the Ecclesiastical Committee and by the Legislative Committee of the Assembly in its explanations to the Ecclesiastical Committee.
I believe that this is a reform very long overdue. It will be of advantage to trustees, in some cases nowadays somewhat harassed trustees of small funds, throughout the country. The Measure will enable them to avail themselves of expert central management, carried out by the Church itself, with expert advice. Advantage will accrue to all trustees who see fit to use the Fund.
The Measure passed through all its stages in the National Assembly of the Church of England in 1957, and a vote was not challenged on any occasion. I have no hesitation in commending it, in the form it appears on the Order Paper to the approval of the House.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Ashton: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) has put the matter very clearly and I need say no more.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (PARTIALLY DISABLED)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.42 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I wish to raise an issue of which I have given the Minister previous notice. He was kind enough to ask me to inform him in advance rather more specifically of the particular problems with which I was concerned. My concern this evening is not with men and women who are fully disabled; though that is a tragic and important subject, I am not inquiring about that on this occasion. I am concerned with men and women in industry who have been partially disabled, who are certified as fit for light work, who set about finding light work, but who far too often discover that there is no employment whatever available to them.
I raised this matter last in November, and the reply I then had from the Government Front Bench was that a person certified as fit for light work, provided he was fully insured, could draw unemployment benefit for nineteen months. The Minister seemed to think that that was a satisfactory reply, even in cases where workers had lost arms or legs, suffering severe disabling injury. Incidentally, I should like to include, though they are not now included, men suffering from pneumoconiosis or severe bronchitis, which plague us particularly in the mining areas. If a man is injured or disabled and has to live with his disability, not for nine or nineteen months but for the rest of his life, not only on compassionate grounds and out of a concern for the individual but on social and economic grounds, much more should be done for him than is done at the present time.
I particularly want the Government spokesmen to tell me how the Government think it is possible or why it is just to ask any man to face the future, when his statutory benefit is exhausted, with absolutely nothing except National Assistance benefit. Until recently, a husband and wife in this position were able to draw 67s. a week, and a rent allowance—a few shillings have been

added—but I should like to know what the Minister thinks is a reasonable sum to live on when, because of their employment, they are no longer able to continue to work and to earn at the level they enjoyed before the illness.
My next point is one that is becoming an increasingly nervous issue with many of our people in the Midlands. What provision is being made to see that employment is made available? There is a very wonderful paragraph which I hope all hon. Members have seen in the 1956 Report of the National Assistance Board. This official document answers, in a very splendid sense indeed, those who like to call the people of this country work-shy and abuse them in every possible way. Referring to unemployment, the Report says:
…it is pertinent to ask why people apparently fit to earn their own living should be drawing assistance at the end of more than a decade of full employment.
This is, of course, the 1956 Report. Unfortunately, we always have to deal with reports that are a little out of date, but the essential facts are still as stated. The Report continues:
With this in mind, the Board examined closely the personal and family circumstances of about 32,000 persons who were under 60 and had been out of work for more than a few weeks. The results of this examination are recorded…. They disclose many problems, but do not support any suggestion that workshyness is extensive, since three out of four of those interviewed, and more than four out of five of those who had been out of work for three years or more, were found to be under some sort of physical or mental handicap.
I think that is enough to show what is the essence of this problem. It shows that people are willing to work and have tried to find it but, because of some disability—sometimes physical, sometimes mental—they have not been able to find it. I have in mind a number of cases affecting mining families, although I am not raising this as either a constituency or a mining issue but as a general question.
Why we are particularly nervous at the moment in the Midlands is that whenever there is unemployment, or the fear of it, or a situation in which overtime has all gone and men in Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton feel that they are down to minimum wages, we get the repercussions in the neighbouring areas. It is bad enough in ordinary circumstances


for men to find employment, but it is doubly bad for the handicapped man or woman. I would therefore be very grateful if I could get a statement from the Government Front Bench as to why it is necessary for a person certified fit for light work and willing to do it to have his benefit stopped and to have to go on National Assistance.
The second question arises particularly when there is fear of rising unemployment, and there is a growing amount of evidence to support that fear. What steps are the Government taking to protect those suffering from handicaps—the most vulnerable and exposed of all the unemployed seeking work?

9.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has raised the question of the problems of a category of people with whom we must all have very great sympathy, and I am sure that we all want to do everything we can to help in these difficult cases. As I hope I shall show later on, and as I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise, we have done a great deal over the last ten years or more in this country to solve this sort of problem. That the problem is not yet completely solved is undeniable, and it must be our aim to improve still further, but, as I hope to show, a great deal has been done already.
There are two main aspects of this question. The first affects the provisions under the National Insurance Act for stopping payment of sickness benefit when it has been certified that a man or woman is fit for light work. The second aspect is that of finding suitable employment for these workers on being so certified. Let me say, and I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees with this, that work is far better for these people than any benefit, however generous, and that has been the whole theme of our effort since the war in dealing with disabled and otherwise handicapped people.
I think it is recognised that we have had great success in that direction. Let me also say that, in our experience at the Ministry of Labour in trying to find employment for disabled and handicapped people, we find little or no evidence of any unwillingness to work. The

greatest desire of all but a very tiny number of these people is to find a job, not only for their own material well-being, but for their psychological and mental satisfaction—the feeling that they are doing something useful and are active members of the community. The number of laggards, who exist here and there, is quite infinitesimal in any evidence that I have ever seen.
I am in some difficulty about replying to the first, and, as I take it, the major question which the hon. Lady asked, because it concerns the provisions of the National Insurance Act, and, as she knows, they are both technical and complicated. I feel that they ought to be pursued with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance rather than with me.
The hon. Lady quite rightly said that she had been in touch with me before this Adjournment debate. I wanted to get in touch with her because, having seen her Question last November, I felt that one of the main points which she wanted to raise might be more concerned with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance than with the Ministry of Labour. It turns out, of course, as is inevitable, that at least part, if not the major part, of what the hon. Lady wishes to pursue is in that field. I hope that she will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry has been here to listen, and, of course, that if I cannot cope with that side of it tonight, not only will my hon. Friend have heard the case, but the hon. Lady herself will not be debarred from following up that side of it on another occasion.
All I want to say about the National Insurance aspect is that any decision to discontinue sickness benefit under this procedure is based on medical advice from independent medical review authorities, and this advice is given after consultation with the family doctor of each applicant. In this way care is taken to ensure that people are not signed off sickness benefit and thrown on to the labour market unless they are genuinely fitted for light work.
The continuation of unemployment benefit, once they have been so signed off the receipt of sickness benefit, is again a National Insurance point, although there


are many people who, because unemployment benefit is paid by the local officers of my Ministry, regard my right hon. Friend and myself as the appropriate people to question; in fact, we are merely agents of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in this matter.
Another point which I should like to make about the rôle of the Ministry of Labour is that, although the regulations are a matter for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, where a person's sickness benefit is stopped and he is certified as fit far light work, his case is handled by the Ministry of Labour, first to pay him unemployment benefit and then, more importantly, to find him suitable work. Therefore, the efficiency and humanity of the services which such a man or woman receives depend upon the Ministry of Labour's local officers, and I assure the hon. Lady that we do our best to take that responsibility seriously.
In 1956, a few cases came to light in which gaps had occurred between the stoppage of sickness benefit and the payment of unemployment benefit, and applicants had had to have recourse to National Assistance during that gap. They had also been inconvenienced and, I am afraid, possibly distressed by being summoned to repeated medical examinations over quite short periods I should like to assure the hon. Lady that, when these cases came to light, prompt action was taken by my Department. As far as we know, the matters complained of have been entirely put right and we have since had no similar incidents reported to us.
I know that that is off the main point which the hon. Lady has raised, but it is important to these people to feel that when these changes are made in their status they are carefully looked after. I wanted, first, to admit that we had found these cases a few years ago and had done our best to see that they were stopped. As far as we know, they have been.
What is the scale of the problem which the hon. Lady is raising? She has made it clear that she was not raising it on any narrow constituency level and, although I shall say something about Cannock at the end, I also want to treat the matter first on a national level. Throughout the country about 14,000 cases such as the hon. Lady has in mind, where sickness benefit is stopped, are reported to us

annually by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. In passing, I might add that in Cannock there were 19 such cases during 1957. But, of course, the numbers who come to us in this way after stoppage of sickness benefit do not constitute anything like the whole of our register of people needing employment and fit only for light work. They are only a proportion of the number of people for whom we need to find light work.
A high proportion of those who come to us are, of course, either on the register of disabled persons or would qualify to be on it. I noted that the hon. Lady said that she was not referring to the seriously or severely disabled people. I understand that but, nevertheless, from the Government's point of view, in weighing up the scale of the problem, the size of the register of disabled is probably the only guide that we have to the problem which we have to meet. Although the people to whom the hon. Lady particularly refers may not be the most severely disabled, I should be surprised if the majority of them are either not on or qualified to be on the register of disabled persons. Therefore, the best measure of the unsatisfied need for light work to which we can point is the total number of unemployed on the disabled person's register.
At last December the number of disabled unemployed was 46,090, which represents about 6 per cent. of the total register of disabled persons and compares with about 63,000 in 1950. I will come back to more figures in a moment, but I think those figures worth giving at this stage because they show that, as far as we can measure it, the seriousness of this problem has been decreasing and certainly not increasing.
How do we tackle the problem of placing all those who need light work? In the Ministry of Labour, as the hon. Lady knows, we cannot, unfortunately, create new jobs because we have no means of doing that. What we can do—and we try to do this as well as we can—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Carr: What we can do is to make the best use of the opportunities which exist. To that end, we have built up over the years a specialised placing service for these disabled and handicapped people. The spearhead of that service is our corps of disablement resettlement officers. I think that the hon. Lady can take it for granted that the kind of people she has mentioned tonight would come under the care and attention of these officers. In all our employment exchanges there is at least one officer who has a special responsibility for this work. That is important, because it is specialist work and specialists are doing it.
We have, also, facilities for rehabilitation and training. This is an obvious point, but it is one that has borne great fruit since the war. If we can give special rehabilitation and training to many of these people it will be found that they can be fitted for categories of work which not so many years ago would have been considered right outside their Scope and ability. About 10,000 people are now admitted to our industrial rehabilitation units every year, and of them no less than 80 per cent. are recovering from recent sickness or injury. In other words, this industrial rehabilitation service is particularly important to the category of persons whom the hon. Lady has in mind, and has proved of immense value in helping this kind of person.
Beyond the actual rehabilitation there is the question of training. Since 1945, an average of about 4,000 disabled persons per year have been trained under the vocational training scheme and placed in employment. Our disablement resettlement officers, our industrial rehabilitation units and our various training centres are the main weapons which we have at our command in the Ministry of Labour in trying to help these people. The statistics show that whilst, as I said at the beginning, there is a problem still remaining, we have not been by any means unsuccessful in making inroads into it.
The achievement is shown perhaps most clearly by the decrease in the number of registered disabled unemployed. In 1948, that number was about 75,000 and at the end of 1957 it had fallen to 46,000. Of course, still more dramatic has been the reduction in the number of

severely disabled, which has fallen from an average of 10,600 in 1948 to only 3,700 at the end of 1957. Although I realise that the hon. Lady has in mind categories other than the official registered disabled, what has been happening as regards the disabled is the best guide—and I think it is a good guide—to the success that we have had in finding suitable light employment for people who are handicapped either by some permanent disability or for shorter periods by the after effects of illness.
Although there has been some slight rise in recent months in the unemployed disabled the end-1957 figure of 46,000 is still encouragingly low by comparison with the past years, and is, in fact, about 17,000 lower than it was in 1950. Therefore, whilst we must not be complacent about the problem which remains, it is fair to say that we have achieved a great deal of success in finding employment for those people capable only of light or limited work, and the problem is much smaller than it was a few years ago. When the hon. Lady asks what are we doing about it, all I can say to her is that we shall continue to use the same methods as we have been using with success in the past.
The hon. Lady expressed fears about what might happen in areas where the unemployment position gets more difficult. Of course, those are fears which we must all have and I am, frankly, ready to say that I have watched this point with some concern during the last year, for example, in the Midlands area when there was a recession in the motor industry.
One of the encouraging signs which we have found is that, on the whole, there has been no tendency for employers to put off the handicapped or limited capacity workers in preference to the others. That is something which many of us feared might happen if ever there were a setback, but the evidence has been most encouraging in showing that that does not occur. While, of course, the general employment position must affect our opportunities for placing people who need limited work, nevertheless our experience so far has shown that temporary setbacks in employment do not have any undue effects on the employment of this sort of person.
I freely admit that the problem of finding work for disabled persons or


people capable of only light work is more difficult in mining and heavy industry areas than it is elsewhere, but successive Governments have done much to encourage industries to set up factories in these areas and numbers of handicapped people have found employment in the new factories. One has only to visit South Wales to realise what has been achieved in that way and that it could not have been achieved in any other way.
While I do not want to dodge the issue, the division of responsibility for employment among Departments has its difficulties and the distribution of industry is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade. I can assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is consulted about these problems and does advise about them. I can assure her that we do not wait until we are asked for advice. We regard it as one of our main jobs in the Ministry of Labour to make sure that information about the employment trend and problems in an area is forcibly brought home to my right hon. Friend, or to any other Government Department capable of taking action.
I have spoken about the figures on a national scale and, finally, I will deal with the position in the Cannock Exchange area. There are 38 men and six women disabled and unemployed and of the disabled men, 32 are regarded as suitable for light employment. Seventeen happen to be ex-coal miners and 25 are 50 years of age or more. Over the last twelve months, as I mentioned, 19 cases of persons whose sickness benefit has been stopped were notified to the Cannock Exchange and there are nine persons of that category unemployed at the moment.
To put the problem into perspective, it should be recorded that against these figures of unemployed, during 1957, the Cannock Exchange placed 46 disabled persons in employment and during the last three months, that is to say, November, December and January, placed 16 people in light industrial jobs in the Cannock area, besides which we know that at least six others found light jobs for themselves. The number of placings when related to the number of cases arising and the number remaining unemployed is not unsatisfactory and shows that there is a reasonable amount of placing activity in this field.
While the figures as a whole may be satisfactory, I know that among the small number of unemployed there may be particularly hard and difficult cases of persons who have long been in need of jobs. While, too, there may be some comfort in the figures, I assure the hon. Lady that I realise that the good average and overall figures do not bring comfort to the few less fortunate persons who provide us with a particularly difficult placing problem. That is the position in the Cannock Exchange area.
I repeat that we understand the importance of this problem. It is fair to say that our success over the years in finding light employment has been considerable, as a result of which the overall number of Unemployed in need of light employment has been steadily falling. I can only assure the hon. Lady that we shall do our best, both in her area and throughout the country, to use our placing service in the Ministry of Labour with energy and imagination, and will try to keep up the progress which I have been able to record as having been made since the war.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: I do not wish to detract from the splendid work which the Ministry of Labour has done in connection with the employment of disabled people. I was closely associated with it at one time, and it is a job of which the Ministry can be proud. On the other hand, we should be deluding ourselves if we thought that all was well; it is not, especially in the case of the more severely disabled.
Several cases have been brought to my notice, and I happen to have with me the papers concerning one of my constituents who is severely disabled with arthritis in both arms. The case papers say:
His right arm cannot be straightened at the elbow and is permanently bent at about 120 degrees…right arm has little strength in it…He cannot use a table knife properly, handle a pair of scissors with it or lift a cup for drinking without assistance from the left hand. The left wrist is incapable of movement and is quite stiff, but he has the use of his left hand and fingers.
This man was self-employed, and he has been signing the disabled register at the employment exchange. Because he was self-employed he cannot draw unemployment benefit, but the tribunal which heard his case says that he is not incapable of work within limits.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of employment we can hope to find for a man like this, who is literally paralysed in both arms. What is the use of saying that he is capable of light work, or that he is capable of work within limits, when it is known by the people who made that designation that a job cannot possibly be found for him?
It so happens that my constituency employs about 70 per cent. of its insured population in the cotton mills and coal mines. The cotton mills demand nimble fingers and the coal mines require great physical strength. Therefore, seven out of ten jobs are closed to this man from the word "Go." If we take into account all the other industries comprising the remaining 30 per cent., we see that it is quite obvious that if we take out the retail distribution services and the public services there can be no opportunity for

this man ever to be employed again. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this label, "Fit for light work". Before such a label is attached to a claimant one should have some regard to the ability of local industry to employ a man who is so physically incapacitated.
The case that I have cited is not mealy an odd one. What is happening is not doing any service to the claimant. In fact, it is cruel because this man is denied employment benefit unless he can go back on to the sick register. It is doing the hon. Gentleman's Department a very great disservice. People are now coming to regard the disabled persons' register in the same cynical way as they regarded the appointments register for a very long time.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Ten o'clock.